1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1936 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1256 OF 2007 VISHWASRAO G. JOSHI ..PLAINTIFF VS. SMT. SARITA Wd/ MOHAN S. KHANOLKAR & ORS. ..DEFENDANTS Mr. M.V.Limaye for the Plaintiff Mr Vijay Waghela for Defendants No.1 to 5 Mr. Vaibhav Patankar for Defendant No.7 CORAM: SMT ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 20 th February, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Plaintiff has sued as Chief Promoter of proposed society. The Plaintiff has shown the names of the other members of the society alongwith dates of their Agreement claiming interest in the respective flats sought to be purchased by those members in the society. The Plaintiff has also shown the remarks against each of the members with regard to the payments made by those members and the documents in 2 their favour . 2. It is contended on behalf of Defendants No.1 to 5 that the suit is filed essentially in a representative capacity and hence the Plaintiff would be required to obtain leave under order 1 rule 8 of CPC. Therefore this Notice of Motion is taken out for rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the CPC. 3. Under Order 7 Rule 11, plaints can be rejected only under the 6 circumstances set out in sub rule (a) to (f) of the said rule. Hence the Plaint can be rejected for want of cause of action, upon undervaluation, upon insufficient stamping, under the bar created by any law, if it is not filed in duplicate and if the required copies of the plaint are not furnished for service upon the Defendants. 4. For any error under order 1 rule 8 of the CPC the plaint cannot be rejected. The contention of the Defendants under that provision shall be considered at the hearing of the suit. The Notice of Motion is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Roshan Dalvi, J)