1 cra157.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.157 OF 2010 Forbes & Company Limited ...Applicant vs. Carona Limited & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar with Ms Sapana Rachure i/b M/s.T.N.Tripathi & Co. for the applicant CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 26, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is the 2nd defendant in a suit for eviction filed by the 1st respondent. An application was made by the applicant before the trial Court seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action as against the applicant. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the averments made in the plaint. He submitted that there is no clear assertion that the applicant is in possession of the suit premises. Inviting my attention to the paragraph 11 of the plaint, he submitted that mere a bald statement in one line that the applicant is in possession will not give any cause of action to the 1st respondent to prosecute the suit against the applicant. He submitted that if the correspondence produced along with the plaint is looked into, it is apparent that in none of the letters addressed by the first respondent, any grievance as 2 cra157.sxw regards the applicant has been made. 3 I have considered the submissions. At the stage of considering the application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be looked into. The case made out in the plaint is that under an agreement in writing, the 1st respondent-plaintiff had given the suit premises to the 1st defendant on the terms and conditions incorporated therein. It is alleged that the 1st defendant was inducted as a licensee and that the 1st respondent-plaintiff granted permission to the 1st defendant to induct the applicant or its sister concern in the suit premises. Paragraph 11 of the plaint reads thus : 11)The plaintiff states that the plaintiff had granted permission to the defendant no.1 for inducting defendant no.2 or its sister concern to use the suit premises. However, the defendant no.1 has inducted separate companies into the suit premises without the knowledge and/or consent of the plaintiff being defendant no.3 and 4 herein. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit `Z the photographs showing the name boards of various companies occupying the suit premises. The plaintiff submits that the defendant no.1 is therefore attempting to create third party interest in respect of the suit premises and to alienate the same. The plaintiffs right in respect of the suit premises are in jeopardy. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to interim and ad-interim reliefs in this regard. The plaintiff is also entitled to orders against 3 cra157.sxw the defendant no.1 pay the plaintiff the amounts due in respect of the suit premises and to continue to pay the same if the defendant no.1 desires to continue the use of the suit premises. The plaintiff states that it is entitled to interim and ad-interim reliefs as prayed for herein in the interests of justice and to protect the rights of the plaintiff. The defendants are bound by law and will not suffer at all if such reliefs are granted but if reliefs are refused then the plaintiff position is being substantially weakened and the plaintiff premises are being alienated and the plaintiff will suffer grave and irreparable harm, damage, loss, injury and prejudice which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The interests of justice and the balance of convenience are entirely in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff states and submits that defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 are companies in possession claiming through defendant no.1 but do not have any independent right/interest in the suit premises and are liable to be evicted along with defendant no.1 who has unlawfully inducted defendants 1 to 3 and 4 therein. (emphasis supplied) 4 The plaint indicates that the case of the 1st respondent is that the 1st defendant committed breaches of terms and conditions on which he was inducted in suit premises. It is alleged that though the 1st respondent had permitted the 1st defendant to induct the present applicant or its sister concerns, the 3rd and 4th defendants who are separate companies have been inducted. 4 cra157.sxw In short, the case of the 1st respondent-plaintiff appears to be that the 1st defendant by committing breaches of the terms and conditions had inducted 3rd and 4th defendants in the suit premises. The plaint specifically alleges that 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendant are in possession of the suit premises and that the said defendants are liable to be evicted. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action disclosed as against the applicant in the suit. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer and there is not reason to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. It is made clear that the observations made by the trial Court as well as this Court are for limited purpose of considering the prayer for rejection of the plaint. All defences of the applicant and other defendants on merits are kept open. 5 Subject to what is observed above, the Revision Application is accordingly rejected. If the applicant has not filed the written statements till today, the trial Court will permit the applicant to file the same within a period eight weeks from today. JUDGE