The plaintiff respondent also filed O.A. No.
In the said suit, an injunction was granted restraining the 1st defendant Society from alienating the property.
1576 of 1991 against the 1st defendant Society before the High Court of Madras for specific performance of the agreement dated 07.01.1990.
915 of 1994 on the file of the High Court for specific performance of the agreement to sell the larger extent of 56 grounds based on an alleged agreement entered into with the 2nd defendant which was dismissed as settled on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding MoU dated 13.02.1997.
By impugned order dated 16.08.2011, the Division Bench while dismissing the appeals against the order rejecting the applications for amendment and for interim injunction, allowed the appeal against the rejection of the plaint.
Questioning the said cancellation, the 2nd defendant instituted C.S. No.
On 24.11.2004, the plaintiff respondent herein filed C.S. No.
The applications bearing Nos.
100 of 2006 filed by the respondent herein in respect of the rejection of the plaint against the appellant herein 1st defendant in the suit by the learned single Judge of the High Court.
Ltd., a sister companycern of the respondent herein filed C.S. No.
Again on 04.08.2001, a Memorandum of Understanding MoU was entered into between the respondent herein and 2nd defendant in which 2nd defendant agreed to sell the remaining portion of the property, viz.,
115 of 2005 for specific performance of the agreement dated 04.08.2001.
Aggrieved by the said judgment insofar as it allowed the appeal against the rejection of the plaint, the appellant Society 1st defendant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.
35, Lock Street, Kottur, Chennai entered into an Agreement for Sale of the property in favour of one S. Velayutham 2nd defendant in the suit on the companydition that the transaction should be companypleted within 6 months after obtaining clearance from Income Tax and other departments and also received an amount of Rs.
On 15.10.1991, the 1st defendant Society revoked the registered power of attorney executed in favour of the 2nd defendant by a registered document alleging various reasons.
Brief facts On 07.01.1990, the appellant Society first defendant , the owner of the property situated at Door No.
Since the appellant herein, as the first defendant before the trial Judge, filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does number show any cause of action against him, at the foremost, it is useful to refer the relevant provision Order VII Rule 11 of the Code Rejection of plaint The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases a where it does number disclose a cause of action b where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to companyrect the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so c where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so d where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law e where it is number filed in duplicate f where the plaintiff fails to companyply with the provision of Rule 9 Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the companyrection of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp paper shall number be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for companyrecting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
132 of 2005 in the said suit praying for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from, in any way, dealing with or alienating the suit property pending disposal of the suit.
5 lakhs as an advance.
On 19.11.1991, as the 2nd defendant failed to companyply with the companymitments made, the 1st defendant Society cancelled the agreement for sale dated 07.01.1990.
28 grounds and 1952 sq.
In the year 2006, the said suit was withdrawn by the 2nd defendant.
to the respondent, sister companycern of M s Karthik Granites Pvt.
On 19.10.1990, the 1st defendant Society executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant limited for the purpose of empowering him to represent the Society before the statutory authorities.
3560 of 2005 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short the Code praying for rejection of the plaint.
On 18.01.2006, the plaintiff respondent filed Application No.179 of 2006 for amendment of the plaint.
A.No.132 of 2005 and 179 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff respondent for interim injunction and amendment of the plaint were also rejected by the learned single Judge.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in O.S.A. Nos.100 102 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while rejecting OSA Nos.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
M s Karthik Granites Pvt.
Challenging the said orders, the plaintiff respondent filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The learned single Judge of the High Court rejected the plaint insofar as 1st defendant is companycerned and directed that the suit can be proceeded against the 2nd defendant.
Ltd. as the agreement holder and power of attorney agent of the appellant.
The 1st defendant therein the Society also filed Application No.
