1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R. Civil Revision Appln. No. 67 OF 2009 Daulatrao Nagorao Shedame -VERSUS - Murarka Shivhare Hsg. Complex Pvt. Ltd. .... Mr. V.V. Bhangde Advocate for the Applicant. .... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE : 25 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. COURT’S ORDER : Heard Mr.Bhangde, learned counsel for the applicant, at length. An order rejecting application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 9-A of Code of Civil Procedure is under challenge in the present revision. 2. In support of revision application, Mr.Bhangde made the following submissions - (i) Perusal of the sale-deeds placed on record 2 clearly show that the property was not purchased in the name of the company which is a registered company under the Companies Act and therefore the company which filed the suit would not be able to maintain it in the absence of requirements which are contemplated under the provisions of Companies Act. (ii) There is no cause of action in favour of the company on the basis of the sale-deeds placed on record and therefore for want of cause of action, the plaint was liable to be rejected. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who argued the revision with his usual vehemence, I find that this is a too premature stage to throw out the plaint from the Court. Perusal of the sale-deeds show that there is a mention of the name of the company though not in proper form, but that is a matter of evidence and the parties are entitled to give their evidence- oral as well as documentary as to whether the company is the owner of the property or the other person whose name is shown is owner of the property. To throw out the plaint without allowing the evidence being brought on record and without appreciating the same on this issue would be to negate justice. In my opinion, unless evidence is recorded and unless issue to this effect is 3 framed, it would be wholly improper to reject the plaint as claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant. With these observations, I find that this is not the stage where this Court should interfere in the matter. In the result, there is no merit in the revision which stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is 81 years old and therefore the suit should be expedited. Applicant to apply to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit and the trial Court shall consider the request in that behalf sympathetically. JUDGE