1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY & ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3230 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1618 OF 2009 Purnima Mayur Pancholi & Ors. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Samir S. Mehta & Anr. ... Defendants. Ms. Purnima Bhatia for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Rushabh Shah and Viral Amin i/b. B. Amin & Co. for the Defendants. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 03rd NOVEMBER 2009. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Shah, in support of the Notice of Motion which is stated to be filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C. 2. This provision enables the Court to dismiss the Suit where it is pointed out that the plaint is not disclosing any cause of action. The arguments of Mr. Shah overlook the difference in law inasmuch as there is no cause of action for maintaining the Suit is a distinct concept than the plaint not disclosing a cause of action. It is not the case of the contesting Defendants that the plaint fails to disclose any cause of action. That is clear from the prayer clauses of the Motion and contents of the affidavit in support. The Notice of Motion is clearly mis-conceived and not tenable in law. It is dismissed but without any order as to costs. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)