Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     4841     OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (C) No.30632  of 2011)

The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable  Society, represented by its Chairman        .... Appellant (s)

Versus

M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee                      .... Respondent(s)

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T      

P.     Sathasivam,     J.   

1) Leave granted.

2) 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. 101 and 102  

of 2006 allowed the appeal being OSA No. 100 of 2006 filed by  

the respondent herein in respect of the rejection of the plaint  

1

Page 2

against the appellant herein (1st defendant in the suit) by the  

learned single Judge of the High Court.

3) Brief facts:

(a) On 07.01.1990, the appellant-Society (first defendant),  

the owner of the property situated at Door No. 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 condition that the transaction should be completed  

within 6 months after obtaining clearance from Income Tax  

and other departments and also received an amount of Rs. 5  

lakhs as an advance. 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.  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.  On 19.11.1991,  

as the 2nd defendant failed to comply with the commitments  

made, the 1st defendant-Society cancelled the agreement for  

sale dated 07.01.1990.   

2

Page 3

(b) Questioning the said cancellation, the 2nd defendant  

instituted C.S. No. 1576 of 1991 against the 1st defendant-

Society before the High Court of Madras for specific  

performance of the agreement dated 07.01.1990.  In the said  

suit, an injunction was granted restraining the 1st defendant-

Society from alienating the property.  In the year 2006, the  

said suit was withdrawn by the 2nd defendant.

(c) M/s Karthik Granites Pvt. Ltd., a sister concern of the  

respondent herein filed C.S. No. 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.   

(d) 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., 28 grounds and 1952 sq. ft. to the  

respondent, sister concern of M/s Karthik Granites Pvt. Ltd. as  

the agreement holder and power of attorney agent of the  

appellant.  On 24.11.2004, the plaintiff-respondent herein filed  

3

Page 4

C.S. No. 115 of 2005 for specific performance of the agreement  

dated 04.08.2001. The plaintiff-respondent also filed O.A. No.  

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.   The  

1st defendant therein-the Society also filed Application No.  

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.  

(e)  The learned single Judge of the High Court rejected the  

plaint insofar as 1st defendant is concerned and directed that  

the suit can be proceeded against the 2nd defendant.  The  

applications bearing Nos. O.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.   

(f) Challenging the said orders, the plaintiff-respondent filed  

appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.  By  

impugned order dated 16.08.2011, the Division Bench while  

dismissing the appeals against the order rejecting the  

4

Page 5

applications for amendment and for interim injunction, allowed  

the appeal against the rejection of the plaint.   

(g) 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.

4) Heard Mr. K. Parasaran and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned  

senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi,  

learned senior counsel for the respondent.   

Points for consideration:

5) The points for consideration in this appeal are:

a) whether the learned single Judge of the High Court was  

justified in ordering rejection of the plaint insofar as the first  

defendant (appellant herein) is concerned; and  

b) whether the Division Bench of the High Court was right in  

reversing the said decision?

6) 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  

not show any cause of action against him, at the foremost, it is  

useful to refer the relevant provision:

5

Page 6

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code:

“11. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the  following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff,  on being required by the Court to correct 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 not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of  Rule 9:  

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of  the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall  not 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 correcting 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.”

It is clear from the above that where the plaint does not  

disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued  

and not corrected within the time allowed by the Court,  

insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by  

the Court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required  

copies and the plaintiff fail to comply with the provisions of  

Rule 9, the Court has no other option except to reject the  

6

Page 7

same.  A reading of the above provision also makes it clear that  

power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised at  

any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or after  

the issuance of summons to the defendants or at any time  

before the conclusion of the trial.  This position was explained  

by this Court in Saleem Bhai & Ors. vs. State of  

Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557, in which, while  

considering Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as  

under:

“9. A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that  the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding  an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint.  The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule  11 CPC at any stage of the suit —  before registering the  plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time  before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of  deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11  of Order VII CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane;  the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement  would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a  direction to file the written statement without deciding the  application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot but be  procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction  by the trial court…….”

It is clear that in order to consider Order VII Rule 11, the  

Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the  

same can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the  

suit.  It is also clear that the averments in the written  

7

Page 8

statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to  

scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint.  In other words,  

what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application  

are the averments in the plaint.  At that stage, the pleas taken  

by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant  

and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments.  

These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett &  

Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property (1998) 7 SCC 184 and Mayar  

(H.K.) Ltd. and Others vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V.  

Fortune Express and Others (2006) 3 SCC 100.

7) It is also useful to refer the judgment in T.  

Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 467,  

wherein while considering the very same provision, i.e. Order  

VII Rule 11 and the duty of the trial Court in considering such  

application, this Court has reminded the trial Judges with the  

following observation:

“5. ……….The learned Munsif must remember that if on a  meaningful – for formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly  vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a  clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order  VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground  mentioned therein is fulfilled.  And if clever drafting has  created the illusion of a cause of action nip it in the bud at  the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under  Order X, C.P.C.  An activist Judge is the answer to  irresponsible law suits.  The trial Courts would insist  

8

Page 9

imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so  that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage.  The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such  men, (Cr.XI) and must be triggered against them…..”

It is clear that if the allegations are vexatious and meritless  

and not disclosing a clear right or material(s) to sue, it is the  

duty of the trial Judge to exercise his power under Order VII  

Rule 11.  If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause  

of action as observed by Krishna Iyer J., in the above referred  

decision, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing  

by examining the parties under Order X of the Code.

Cause of Action:

8) While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the  

bounden duty of the trial Court to ascertain the materials for  

cause of action.  The cause of action is a bundle of facts  

which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff  

the right to relief against the defendant.  Every fact which is  

necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a  

decree should be set out in clear terms.  It is worthwhile to  

find out the meaning of the words “cause of action”.  A cause  

9

Page 10

of action must include some act done by the defendant since  

in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly  

accrue.

9) In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. A.P.  

Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163, this Court explained the  

meaning of “cause of action” as follows:

“12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed,  it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to  support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words,  it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to  them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the  defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant  since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can  possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of  the right sued on but includes all the material facts on  which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary  to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff  to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which  if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate  judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no  relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the  defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief  prayed for by the plaintiff.”

10) It is useful to refer the judgment in Bloom Dekor Ltd. vs.  

Subhash Himatlal Desai & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 322, wherein  

a three Judge Bench of this Court held as under:

 “28. By “cause of action”  it is meant every fact, which, if  traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in  order to support his right to a judgment of the Court, (Cooke  v. Gill, 1873 LR 8 CP 107). In other words, a bundle of facts  which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to  succeed in the suit.”  

1

Page 11

It is mandatory that in order to get relief, the plaintiff has to  

aver all material facts.  In other words, it is necessary for the  

plaintiff to aver and prove in order to succeed in the suit.

Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code  

11) Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior counsel by taking us  

through Form Nos. 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code which  

relate to suit for specific performance submitted that inasmuch  

as those forms are statutory in nature with regard to the claim  

filed for the relief for specific performance, the Court has to be  

satisfied that the plaint discloses a cause of action.  In view of  

Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d), the Court has to satisfy that  

the plaint discloses a cause of action and does not appear to be  

barred by any law.  The statutory forms require the date of  

agreement to be mentioned to reflect that it does not appear to  

be barred by limitation.  In addition to the same, in a suit for  

specific performance, there should be an agreement by the  

defendant or by a person duly authorized by a power of  

attorney executed in his favour by the owner.

12) In the case on hand, the plaintiff-respondent to get a  

decree for specific performance has to prove that there is a  

subsisting agreement in his favour and the second defendant  

1

Page 12

has the necessary authority under the power of attorney.  

Order VII Rule 14 mandates that the plaintiff has to produce  

the documents on which the cause of action is based,  

therefore, he has to produce the power of attorney when the  

plaint is presented by him and if he is not in possession of the  

same, he has to state as to in whose possession it is.  In the  

case on hand, only the agreement between the plaintiff and the  

second defendant has been filed along with the plaint under  

Order VII Rule 14(1).  As rightly pointed out by the learned  

senior counsel for the appellant, if he is not in possession of  

the power of attorney, it being a registered document, he  

should have filed a registration copy of the same.  There is no  

such explanation even for not filing the registration copy of the  

power of attorney.  Under Order VII Rule 14(2) instead of  

explaining in whose custody the power of attorney is, the  

plaintiff has simply stated ‘Nil’.  It clearly shows non-

compliance of Order VII Rule 14(2).  

13) In the light of the controversy, we have gone through all  

the averments in the plaint.  In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it is  

alleged that the 2nd defendant as agreement holder of the 1st  

defendant and also as the registered power of attorney holder  

1

Page 13

of the 1st defendant executed the agreement of sale.  In spite of  

our best efforts, we could not find any particulars showing as  

to the documents which are referred to as “agreement holder”.  

We are satisfied that neither the documents were filed along  

with the plaint nor the terms thereof have been set out in the  

plaint.  The abovementioned two documents were to be treated  

as part of the plaint as being the part of the cause of action.  It  

is settled law that where a document is sued upon and its  

terms are not set out in the plaint but referred to in the plaint,  

the said document gets incorporated by reference in the plaint.  

This position has been reiterated in U.S. Sasidharan vs. K.  

Karunakaran and Another (1989) 4 SCC 482 and Manohar  

Joshi vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and Another (1996) 1 SCC  

169.

Power of Attorney:

14) Next, we have to consider the power of attorney.  It is  

settled that a power of attorney has to be strictly construed.  In  

order to agree to sell or effect a sale by a power of attorney, the  

power should also expressly authorize the power to agent to  

execute the sale agreement/sale deed i.e., (a) to present the  

document before the Registrar; and (b) to admit execution of  

1

Page 14

the document before the Registrar.  A perusal of the power of  

attorney, in the present case, only authorizes certain specified  

acts but not any act authorizing entering into an agreement of  

sale or to execute sale deed or admit execution before the  

Registrar.  In a recent decision of this Court in Suraj Lamp  

and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another  

(2012) 1 SCC 656, the scope of power of attorney has been  

explained in the following words:

“20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in  regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable  property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency  whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to do the acts  specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed  will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see Section  1-A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is  revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made  irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable  attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the  grantee.

21. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12  SCC 77.  this Court held: (SCC pp. 90 & 101, paras 13 &  52)

“13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially  governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a  deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to  act for the principal in one transaction or a series of  transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal  generally conferring necessary authority upon another  person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the  principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to  use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him  and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the  same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of  attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience.

* * *

1

Page 15

52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the  provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers of Attorney  Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed  hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the  donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of  attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee  in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only  acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers  granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power  of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary  capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter  between the donor and the donee.”

An attorney-holder may however execute a deed of  conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power  of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor.”

15) It is clear that from the date the power of attorney is  

executed by the principal in favour of the agent and by virtue  

of the terms the agent derives a right to use his name and all  

acts, deeds and things done by him are subject to the  

limitations contained in the said deed.  It is further clear that  

the power of attorney holder executed a deed of conveyance in  

exercise of the power granted under it and conveys title on  

behalf of the grantor.   In the case on hand, though the plaint  

avers that the 2nd defendant is the agreement holder of the 1st  

defendant, the said agreement is not produced.  It was also  

pointed out that the date of agreement is also not given in the  

plaint.  We have already mentioned Form Nos. 47 and 48 of  

Appendix A and failure to mention date violates the statutory  

1

Page 16

requirement and if the date is one which attracts the bar of  

limitation, the plaint has to conform to Order VII Rule 6 and  

specifically plead the ground upon which exemption from  

limitation is claimed.  It was rightly pointed out on the side of  

the appellant that in order to get over the bar of limitation all  

the required details have been omitted.   

Relief of Specific Performance is discretionary:

16) Under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is  

settled that the jurisdiction to grant specific performance is  

discretionary.  The above position has been reiterated by the  

Division Bench of the Madras High Court even in 1937 vide  

Sirigineedi Subbarayadu vs. Kopanathi Tatayya, 1937  

Madras Weekly Notes 1158, 1159.  The same view has been  

reiterated once again by the Madras High Court in  

Ramaswamy Gounder vs. K.M. Venkatachalam 1976(1)  

Madras Law Journal 243, 248, 249 paras 11-13.  The similar  

view has been reiterated by this Court in Mohammadia  

Cooperative Building Society Ltd. vs. Lakshmi Srinivasa  

Cooperative Building Society Ltd. and Others (2008) 7 SCC  

310.   

1

Page 17

Non-joinder of Defendant No. 2 in the application filed  under Order VII Rule 11

17) In view of the conduct of the plaintiff, bereft of required  

materials as mandated by the statutory provisions, the plaint  

is liable to be rejected at this stage itself as the cause of action  

pleaded in the plaint is vitiated.  Learned senior counsel for the  

respondent vehemently contended that inasmuch as in the  

application for rejection of plaint, the 1st defendant has not  

impleaded the 2nd defendant, the said application is liable to be  

dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the 2nd defendant,  

who is a necessary party.  On the other hand, learned senior  

counsel for the appellant submitted that 2nd defendant is not a  

necessary party to the application for rejection of plaint and  

according to him non-joinder of the 2nd defendant does not  

affect the merit of the application as the plaintiff alone is a  

necessary party to the application for rejection of plaint.  The  

stand taken by the appellant, who has filed the application for  

rejection of the plaint, is sustainable and acceptable.  We have  

already adverted to the averments in the plaint and we have  

held that the plaint has not shown a complete cause of action  

of privity of contract between the plaintiff and the first  

1

Page 18

defendant or on behalf of the 1st defendant.  To reject the plaint  

even before registration of the plaint on one or more grounds  

mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the other  

defendants need not necessarily be heard at all as it does not  

affect their rights.  As a matter of fact, this Court in Saleem  

Bhai (supra) held that the plaint can be rejected even before  

the issuance of summons.  This Court has taken a view that  

the trial Court can exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11  

of the Code at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the  

plaint or after issuance of summons to the defendants or at  

any time before the conclusion of the trial.  We respectfully  

agree with the said view and reiterate the same.  On the other  

hand, when the plaintiff itself persists in not impleading a  

necessary party in spite of objection, the consequences of non-

joinder may follow.  However, the said objection should be  

taken in the trial Court itself so that the plaintiff may have an  

opportunity to rectify the defect.   The said plea cannot be  

raised in this Court for the first time.  This position has been  

reiterated in State of U.P.  vs. Ram Swarup Saroj (2000) 3  

SCC 699.  We hold that a plea as to the non-joinder of the  

party cannot be raised for the first time before this Court if the  

1

Page 19

same was not raised before the trial Court and has not  

resulted in failure of justice.  In the case of non-joinder, if the  

objection is raised for the first time before this Court, the  

Court can always implead the party on the application  

wherever necessary.   However, in the case on hand, for the  

disposal of application filed for rejection of the plaint under  

Order VII Rule 11, 2nd defendant is not a necessary party,  

hence he need not be impleaded.  Accordingly, we reject the  

said objection of the respondent herein.

18) Apart from the above aspect, in the case on hand, the  

application for rejection of the plaint of the appellant-1st  

defendant seeks no relief against the respondent herein-2nd  

defendant.  It is settled legal position that a party against  

whom no relief is claimed in the application is not a necessary  

party at all.   

19) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the  

respondent pointed out that the learned single Judge while  

accepting the case of the appellant-1st defendant in allowing  

the application for rejection of plaint has taken into  

consideration extraneous material, i.e., the suit filed by M/s  

Karthik Granites (P) Ltd. (C.S.No. 915 of 1994) and the  

1

Page 20

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 13.02.1997.  It is  

brought to our notice that it is the counsel for the plaintiff who  

relied on these two extraneous materials beyond the plaint for  

sustaining the plaint though that material was sought to be  

incorporated by amendment of the plaint.  Apart from these, in  

addition to the application for rejection of the plaint, two other  

applications, namely, for injunction and for amendment of  

plaint were also taken up together which led to the situation  

considering materials other than the plaint averments for the  

purpose of considering the application for rejection of the  

plaint.   Accordingly, the contention of the learned senior  

counsel for the respondent is liable to be rejected.

20) Finally, learned senior counsel for the respondent  

submitted that in view of a decision of this Court  in Roop Lal  

Sathi vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill (1982) 3 SCC 487, rejection  

of the plaint in respect of one of the defendants is not  

sustainable.  We have gone through the facts in that decision  

and the materials placed for rejection of plaint in the case on  

hand.  We are satisfied that the principles of the said decision  

does not apply to the facts of the present case where the  

appellant-1st defendant is not seeking rejection of the plaint in  

2

Page 21

part.  On the other hand, the 1st defendant has prayed for  

rejection of the plaint as a whole for the reason that it does not  

disclose a cause of action and not fulfilling the statutory  

provisions.   In addition to the same, it is brought to our notice  

that this contention was not raised before the High Court and  

particularly in view of the factual details, the said decision is  

not applicable to the case on hand.   

21) In the light of the above discussion, in view of the  

shortfall in the plaint averments, statutory provisions, namely,  

Order VII Rule 11, Rule 14(1) and Rule 14(2), Form Nos. 47  

and 48 in Appendix A of the Code which are statutory in  

nature, we hold that the learned single Judge of the High  

Court has correctly concluded that in the absence of any cause  

of action shown as against the 1st defendant, the suit cannot  

be proceeded either for specific performance or for the recovery  

of money advanced which according to the plaintiff was given  

to the 2nd defendant in the suit and rightly rejected the plaint  

as against the 1st defendant.  Unfortunately, the Division  

bench failed to consider all those relevant aspects and  

erroneously reversed the decision of the learned single Judge.  

2

Page 22

We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division  

Bench of the High Court.

22) In the light of the above discussion, the judgment and  

order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the  

High Court in OSA No. 100 of 2006 is set aside and the order  

dated 25.01.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in  

Application No. 3560 of 2005 is restored.  The civil appeal is  

allowed with costs.  

...…………….…………………………J.            (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

 .…....…………………………………J.    (J. CHELAMESWAR)  

NEW DELHI; JULY 03, 2012.  

2