1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL NO. 594 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1936 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 1256 OF 2007 Sarita Wd/o. Mohan Sitaram Khanolkar & Ors .. Appellants Vs Vishwas Gajanan Joshi & Ors .. Respondents Mr. Vijay Vaghela for the appellants Mr. M.V. Limaye for respondent no. 1 Mr. Vaibhav Patankar for respondent nos. 3 (a & b) CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 4th January, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Vaghela the learned counsel for the appellants who are the defendant nos. 1 to 5 in Suit No. 1256 of 2007 filed by the present respondents. 2. In the said suit, Notice of Motion No. 1936 of 2007 was taken out by defendant nos. 1 to 5 praying for return of the suit under Order RMA 1.APP594-09.sxw 2 VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. It was contended that the plaintiff Shri. Vishwas G. Joshi could not have sued in his capacity as the Chief Promoter of the proposed co-operative housing society by name Yugandharadham Co-Op Housing Society unless leave was obtained under Order I, Rule 8 of C.P.C. In addition, it was claimed that the suit was undervalued and therefore, it was required to be returned under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. The learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 20th February, 2009 was pleased to dismiss the Motion and hence, this appeal. 3. We have perused the Notice of Motion as well as the impugned order. Mr. Limaye, the learned counsel also states that so far as under valuation is concerned, he has already removed this deficiency. The learned single Judge considered the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 and held that the plaint could be rejected in any of the six circumstances set out in clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order VII of C.P.C. 4. We have perused the copy of the plaint in which the plaintiff very clearly stated that he was filing the suit in his representative capacity as the Chief Promoter of the proposed co-operative RMA 1.APP594-09.sxw 3 housing society and that he was in possession of the suit property in that capacity. Considering these averments, the learned single Judge held that the provisions of Order I, Rule 8 of C.P.C were not applicable and consequently, the Notion of Motion was dismissed. 5. We do not find any error so as to entertain this appeal and therefore, it must fail at the threshold. The appeal is dismissed. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.] RMA 1.APP594-09.sxw