company director

PLJ 2008 Karachi 138

Present: Arshad Noor Khan, J.

PAK AMERICAN COMMERCIAL (PVT.) LTD. through Director--Plaintiff

versus

HUMAYOUN LATIF and 7 others--Defendants

Suit No. 981 of 2002, C.M.A. No. 6871 of 2005, 6923, 7251, 7569 of 2002, 4825 of 2003 & 7230 of 2006, decided on 25.8.2008.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----O.VII, R. 11--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), S. 42--Rejection of plaint--Declaration of title--Limitation--Plaintiff was tenant of defendants and consequently sought possession of suit property--Validity--Director of plaintiff company was in knowledge about execution of transfer of tenancy rights by his father in favour of his brother--Suit was filed belatedly after about five years of registration of transfer deed in favour of his brother and no explanation had been put forward by plaintiff seeking such declaration after inordinate delay--No privity of contract existed between parties, therefore, plaintiff possessed no legal character to maintain suit against defendants--Suit filed by plaintiff was not maintainable in law--Plaint was rejected.

      [Pp. 140, 147 & 148] A, B & D

2001 SCMR 1140; 1986 CLC 1378; 1985 CLC 261; 1968 SCMR 734; 1986 SCMR 1638; 1991 CLC 1220; PLD 1967 Dacca 190; 1989 CLC 964; 1982 SCMR 1178; 1982 SCMR 1181; PLD 1971 SC 550; PLD 1997 Karachi 62; PLD 1991 Lahore 381; 2002 CLD 1665; 1980 CLC 1932; 1998 CLC 1767; 1987 CLC 367; 1994 CLC 2413; 2002 SCMR 338; 1981 SCMR 878; 2000 CLC 1633; 1989 CLC 15; 1994 MLD 207; 1993 MLD 2419; 1999 CLC 246; 1991 MLD 2295; 1994 MLD 126; 2001 MLD 1159; PLD 1970 BJ 5; 1970 SCMR 29; PLD 1970 Kar. 332; 1994 CLC 2004; PLD 1949 Lah. 100; 1991 CLC 149; AIR 1967 SC 1386; AIR 1926 Allah. 457; 1994 SCMR 2142; 1995 SCMR 96; PLD 1998 SC 1509; 2003 SCMR 1416; 1986 CLC 110 and 1985 SCMR 714 ref.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----O.XXIX, R.I--Suit for declaration, cancellation, damages and permanent injunction against defendants by corporation--Non-filing of resolution of Board of Directors--Effect--Plaint filed by or on behalf of plaintiff company, did not show that its director had filed any resolution passed by its Board of Directors authorizing him to sign, verify and present the plaint--Such plaint was without lawful authority as plaint had not been presented properly.      [P. 148] C

PLD 1971 SC 550 rel.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----O. VII, R. 11--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), S. 39--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 91--Rejection of plaint--Cancellation of registered document--Plaintiff sought cancellation of registered--Validity--Cancellation of document fell u/S. 39 of Specific Relief Act, and period to file suit for cancellation of such document was three years u/Art. 91 of Limitation Act, 1908, from the date when facts had become known to the plaintiff--Execution and registration of the document was within the knowledge of plaintiff and plaint filed on 27-9-2002 was filed after expiry of limitation period--Suit regarding cancellation of registered document executed on 31-10-1997 was barred u/Art. 91 of Limitation Act--Plaint was rejected.      [P. 148] E

Mr. Muhammad Ismail Memon, Advocate for Plaintiff.

Raja Qasit Nawaz, Advocate for Defendant Nos. 1 and 8.

Mr. Farhan Abrar, Advocate for Defendant No. 7.

Date of hearing: 25.8.2008.

Order

By this common order, I intend to dispose of C.M.A. No. 6871/05 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. and CM.A. No. 6923/2002 filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 8 under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C for rejection of plaint as the facts and the circumstances as well as law involved in both of these applications are identical.

The facts leading rise to file the aforesaid applications are that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration, cancellation, damages and permanent injunctions against the defendants stating therein that the plaintiff and Defendant No. 7 are real brothers inter se and plaintiff is running a private limited company under the name and style of Pak. American Commercial (Pvt.) Ltd incorporated under the Companies Act, 1984 and their registered office is situated at 1st floor, Hamid Chambers, Zaib-un-Nisa Street, Saddar, Karachi and Arshad R. Jaffri, plaintiff and Ahsan Raza Jaffri, Defendant No. 7 are the directors of the plaintiff company and all the directors of the company are real brothers and father of the directors of company namely Agha Mohsin Jaffri was also a director of the company. The father of the plaintiff obtained the aforesaid premises on rent from the father of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 namely Latif Hamid. The rent agreement in between the father of the plaintiff and father of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 was executed somewhere in 1967 and plaintiffs company is running the business of retail and wholesale of books and magazine, general, encyclopedias, computers, children Islamic basic management marketing reference books and other subjects since last about 34 years and they used to pay rent Rs. 4,785 per month and Rs. 4,730 as monthly maintenance charges to the Defendants Nos. 1 to 6. It is further stated in the plaint that electricity, telephone charges etc. were being paid by the plaintiff. The father of Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 died in the year 1990 and Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 being his legal heirs became the owner of the suit property, therefore tenancy agreement in between the directors of the plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 was executed. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 hatched out a conspiracy to usurp the share and pagree amount to the tune of Rs. 6,000,000 thereby depriving all the remaining directors of the plaintiff's company. On 27-8-2002 a director of the plaintiff's company namely Arshad R. Jaffri received telephonic call from their staff whereby informing him that Defendant No. 1 stormed in his office and threatened him to vacate the office forthwith. He therefore immediately rushed to the office where he found Defendant No. 1, as such he reported the matter to the police, but before arrival of the S.H.O. they de-camped from there. On 29-8-2002 plaintiff lodged a complaint against Defendant Nos. 1 and 7 at police station Artillery Maidan and on 30-8-2002 Defendant No. 1 along with his companions again visited the suit property and threatened the son of Arshad R. Jaffri and introduced a person, said to be Tanzanian Consulate General (Defendant No. 8) who allegedly is the brother-in-law of Defendant No. 1. Zulfiqar Jaffri son of Arshad R. Jaffri then informed him on telephone and upon calling police they fled away from there. The plaintiff, therefore, sent applications to the then Chief Executive, Governor of Sindh, A.S.P., S.S.P., Nazim, Naib Nazim, T.P.O. and S.H.O. Artillery Maindan, requesting therein to save them from highhandedness of the defendants. Subsequently the said director was informed that the property has been sealed by the police. The furniture, fixture, appliances, article and cash etc. worth Rs. 10 to 12 lacs were lying in the suit property at the time of seal. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated before the Judicial Magistrate-X, Karachi-South, which were contested by Arshad R. Jaffri and his son Zulfiqar A. Jaffri and defendants filed their respective objections/written statements in the Court of judicial Magistrate, who after holding inquiry decided the matter in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 8 vide order dated 27-9-2002. It is further stated in the plaint that Agha Mohsin Jaffri, father of Arshad R. Jaffri was served with a fake notice which does not bear his signature as a token of its receipt. He was paralyzed in the year 1991 as such someone impersonated as Agha Mohsin Jaffri and got registered undertaking dated 12-11-1997 by way of misrepresentation and fraud as because of wrecked condition of his father, he was unable to talk, sign or move. It is further alleged in the plaint that the tenancy agreement dated 20-12-1997 was prepared falsely in back date and that intimation notice dated 21-8-2002 served by the defendant on Defendant No. 7 was collusive document and on 25-8-2002, the Defendant No. 7 showed his willingness to vacate the property on or before 31st August 2002. It is further stated in the plaint that Honorary Consulate of the United Republic of Tanzania addressed letter to Defendant No. 1 for the purpose of obtaining possession of the suit property. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit against the defendant, with the following prayers:

(a)   To declare that the plaintiff is tenant of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 in respect office 1st floor, Hamid Chambers, Zaibunnisa Street, Sadder, Karachi.

(b)   To declare that Notice dated 1-7-1990, Undertaking dated 17-11-1997, Tenancy Agreement dated 20-12-1997, Certificate dated 27-10-1998, Termination Notice dated 21.8.2002, its Reply dated 25-8-2002, Possession Letter dated 27-8-2002, Notice for Re-confirmation dated 29.8.2002, Tenancy Agreement dated 30-8-2002, complaints of Honorary Consulate of United Republic of Tanzania both dated 31-8-2002, Complaints dated 28-8-2002 and 31.8.2002, Police Letter/Reports dated 30-8-2002 and any other documents etc. are collusive, fabricated, forged, back dated, illegal, null and void. The same may kindly be ordered to be delivered up and adjudged void and cancelled.

(c)   To declare that the action of the Defendants Nos. 1, 7 and 8 to seal the suit office and harass the plaintiff are null and void.

(d)   To direct the Defendants Nos. 1, 7 and 8 to pay a sum of Rs. 60,00,000 as damages.

(e)   Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, agents, subordinates etc., and any body under them from renting out the suit office to the Defendant No. 8 and/ or any other person(s), firm, company etc., occupying the same or delivering the possession thereof as well as harassing, blackmailing and threatening the plaintiff and misappropriating, removing, destroying etc the articles lying in the suit office.

(f)   To award costs against the Defendant No. 1,7 and 8.

(g)   Such other and/or further relief which on the facts disclosed above and/or under the circumstances of the case, this Honourable Court may find the plaintiffs are entitled to and/or this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant.

The defendants were served with the notice of the suit, who filed their written statements and denied the allegations contained in the plaint. The Defendant No. 7 in his written statement emphatically submitted that the plaintiff never remained as director and he was the tenant of the defendants in his independent capacity and that the tenancy agreement as well as registered undertaking were well within the knowledge of present alleged director of the company and the present suit has been filed, for ulterior motives.

The learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 8 filed application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint, notice of which has been served on the plaintiff, who also filed counter-affidavit to this application. The plaintiff has also filed application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. against the defendants, who have also filed their counter-affidavit and have denied the violation of any order passed by this Court.

I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. Raja Qasit Nawaz, Advocate for Defendants Nos. 1 and 8 and Mr. Farhan Abrar, Advocate for Defendant No. 7.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently contended that the plaintiff through their directors are running a company and their brother Defendant No. 7 wrongly deprived off the plaintiff from their legitimate right by executing the document not warranted under the law. He further contended that the possession of the property in dispute was obtained from the plaintiff by using foul tactics and the business of the plaintiff company has been admitted by the Defendant No. 7 and the remaining directors of the company and cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit and each of the allegations contained in the suit requires evidence and without recording the evidence of the parties no substantial justice could be done, as such the issue may be framed and the plaintiff may be allowed to lead his evidence and suit may be decided on merit. According to him Defendant No. 8 being the Consulate General of Tanzania, used his status and influence in getting the possession of the property in dispute in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. which was also an illegal act of the defendants, which further requires evidence. The defendants have violated the order passed by the Court and just to avoid the consequence of the contempt committed by them, they have filed application of rejection of plaint, which is not maintainable.

Mr. Raja Qasit Nawaz, Advocate for Defendant Nos. 1 and 8, vehemently contended that the suit admittedly has been filed by the plaintiff being a private limited company and no resolution or the power of attorney has been filed along with the suit thereby empowering Mr. Arshad R. Jaffri to sign, verify and present the suit. According to him the plaintiff possess no legal character to file suit against them as there was no privity of contract in between the parties, as such the suit is hit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. He further contended that Defendant No. 7 was the actual tenant of Defendant No. 1 who has surrendered the possession of the property in favour of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the act of the Defendant No. 7. According to him, the plaintiff illegally attempted to obtain the possession of the property which was vacated by Defendant No. 7, therefore the property was sealed by the police and after holding an enquiry under Section 145, Cr.P.C. possession was resorted by the Judicial Magistrate to the defendants. According to him the suit is hopelessly time-barred and that no useful purpose will be served to proceed further with the matter because the plaintiffs are strangers, who never remained in possession of the property in dispute as such the suit is liable to be rejected under order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. He further contended that no specific instance of alleged violation of any order passed by this Court has been pointed out. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case of Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. Karachi v. Pirjee Muhammad Naqi reported in 2001 SCMR 1140; the case of Minochar N. Kharas v. Ali Hassan Manghi and others reported in 1986 CLC 1378; the case of Aijaz Hussain Bhatti v. Haji Bagh Ali and other reported in 1985 CLC 261; the case of Khawaja Muhammad Yaqub Khan v. Sh. Abdur Rahim and others reported in 1968 SCMR 734; the case of Muhammad Sarwar v. Muhammad Shafi reported in 1986 SCMR 1638; the case of Messrs Services Sales Corporation v. Abdul Karim reported in 1991 CLC 1220; the case of Burmah Eastern v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union and others reported in PLD 1967 Dacca 190; the case of Mst. Sakina and others v. The Excise and Taxation Officer and others reported in 1989 CLC 964, the case of Dr. Faqir Muhammad v. Maj Amir Muhammad and others reported in 1982 SCMR 1178, the case of Muhammad Sharif v. The State, reported in 1982 SCMR 1181, Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. reported in PLD 1971 SC 550, the case of Abdul Rahim and 2 others v. Messrs United Bank of Pakistan reported in PLD 1997 Karachi 62, the case of Government of Pakistan v. Premier Sugar Mills and others reported in PLD 1991 Lahore 381, the case of Messrs Taurus Securities Ltd. v. Arif Saigol and others reported in 2002 CLD 1665, Punjab Livestock Dairy and Poultry Development Board v. Sheikh Muhammad Younus reported in 1980 CLC 1932, the case of Friendship Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd v. Government of Balochistan reported in 1998 CLC 1767, the case of Abubakar Saley Mayet v. Abbot Laboratories and another reported in 1987 CLC 367, the case of Messrs Standard Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Rio Centre and others reported in 1994 CLC 2413, the case of S.M. Shafi Ahmad Zaidi v. Malik Hassan Ali Khan (Moin) reported in 2002 SCMR 338, the case of Muhammad Akhtar and others v. Abdul Hadi and others reported in 1981 SCMR 878, the case of Maj. (Retd.) Hamid Ali Khan v. Mian Muhammad Anwar reported in 2000 CLC 1633, the case of Mian Muhammad Akram and others v. Muhammad Rafi reported in 1989 CLC 15, the case of Muhammad Zaman v. Tariq Mahmood and 28 others reported in 1994 MLD 207, the case of Muhammad Yaqub and 63 others v. The Province of the Punjab reported in 1993 MLD 2419, the case of Abdul Zahir v. Mir Muhammad and 10 others reported in 1999 CLC 246, the case of Muhammad Yasin Khan and 4 others v. Azad Government of Jammu and Kashmir reported in 1991 MLD 2295, the case of Fazal Rahim v. Al-Wajid Town reported in 1994 MLD 126, the case of Ghous Bux v. Muhammad Suleman and others reported in 2001 MLD 1159, the case of Muhammad Amin and others v. Mian Muhammad reported in PLD 1970 BJ 5, the case of Chiragh Din and Another v. Chairman, Thai Development Authority reported in 1970 SCMR 29, the case of Oil and Gas Development Corporation v. Lt. Col. Shujauddin Ahmed reported in PLD 1970 Karachi 332, the case of Tahir Mahmood Rana v. The Development Corporation of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others reported in 1994 CLC 2004, the case of Karam Ali and others v. Raja and others reported in PLD 1949 Lahore 100, the case of Messrs Haydari Construction Co. Ltd. v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International Overseas, Ltd. and another reported in 1991 CLC 149, the case of Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj reported in AIR 1967 SC 1386, the case of Nand Kishore v. Shadi Ram and others, reported in AIR 1926 Allahabad 457, the case of Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan reported in 1994 SCMR 2142, the case of Syed Fakhar Mahmood Gillani v. Abdul Ghafoor reported in 1995 SCMR 96, the case of Sardara and 4 others v. Muhammad Khan reported in PLD 1998 SC 1509, the case of Wajid Ali Khan v. Sheikh Murtaza-Ali and 2 others reported in 2003 SCMR 1416, the case of M. Shafi v. The State reported in 1986 CLC 110 and the case of Pakistan Banking Council and 4 others v. Ali Maohtaram Naqvi and others, reported in 1985 SCMR 714.

Mr. Farhan Abrar, learned counsel for Defendant No. 7 has supported the arguments advanced by Mr. Raja Qasit Nawaz, Advocate for Defendant Nos. 1 and 8.

I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the contents of the plaint as well as material available on record.

Admittedly, as per contents of the plaint, Agha Mohsin Jaffri the father of Arshad R. Jaffri and Ahsan Raza Jaffri, Defendant No. 7 obtained the property in dispute from the father of Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 on rent and he was running his business with the assistance of Defendant No. 7 which continued till October 1997 when because of the wrecked condition surrendered the tenancy in favour of this son Ahsan Raza Jaffri and such undertaking/N.O.C. of transfer of tenancy was registered on 31-10-2007 before the Sub-Registrar. A perusal of the said undertaking/N.O.C. filed with the plaint as well as with the counter-affidavit filed by Defendant No. 7 shows that two sons of deceased Agha Mohsin Jaffri namely; Abbas Jafferi and Syed Hassan Raza Jaffri had singed it as witnesses and, in case, if the plaintiff company was being run and all the sons of Agha Mohsin Jaffri were directors of the company, Abbas Jaffri and Syed Hassan Raza Jaffri, who were the signatory of registered undertaking/N.O.C. had to raise objection regarding transfer of tenancy in favour of Ahsan Raza Jaffri. The non-raising of any objection by the two sons of Agha Mohsin Jaffri at the time of registration of document regarding transfer of tenancy in favour of Ahsan Raza Jaffri, speaks volume about joint running of business as directors by all the sons of Agha Mohsin Jaffri, even both the remaining alleged directors namely Abbas Jaffri and Syed Hassan Raza Jaffri have neither signed the plaint nor have sworn any affidavit to that effect which shows that their brother Arshad R. Jafferi has taken misconceived steps in maintaining the present suit. Admittedly after registration of transfer of tenancy deed, the tenancy agreement has been executed in between Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and Defendant No. 7 on 20.12.1997, which fact has also not disputed by the plaintiff nor raised any objection to the execution of the tenancy agreement in favour of Defendant No. 7 by the Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, in spite of their knowledge which also adversely reflect on the claim of the plaintiffs company. As per contents of the plaint the plaintiff was in knowledge of these facts but prior to filing of the present suit he never served any notice on defendants or on his brother to claim the tenancy in respect of the property in dispute which allegedly was wrongly transferred in favour of Defendant No. 7, even no evidence to show that the plaintiff company was being run by the directors who are brothers inter se so as to prove that the company was being run by the directors. Even the registration certificate of the company as required under Companies Act, 1984 has not been produced to show that the company was registered under Companies Act, 1984 nor the article of association as required under Companies Act 1984 have been prepared and produced in Court so as to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff company was being run lawfully under the Companies Act. In absence of such evidence of registration of the firm, the claim of the plaintiff seems to be not legal and proper.

The independent tenancy of Defendant No. 7 never remained disputed by the plaintiff as such relation of landlord and tenant remains in between Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and Defendant No. 7 and Defendant No. 7 committed default in payment of rent therefore Defendant No. 1 served notice dated 21-8-2002 on him calling upon him to vacate the premises in dispute, which notice was responded by Defendant No. 7 vide his letter dated 25-8-2002 accepting therein the default committed by him and informed to the Defendant No. 1 that he was unable to continue his business because of financial implications and he will vacate the premises by 31st August 2002. In pursuance of said letter of Defendant No. 7 dated 25-8-2002 possession was handed over to defendant" No. 1 by Defendant No. 7 through receipt dated 31-8-2002 executed in presence of the witnesses. After obtaining possession from Defendant No. 7, the Defendant No. 1 let out the said premises to Consulate General of Republic of Tanzania vide tenancy agreement dated 30-8-2002. It is also an admitted position that the property in question was sealed by the police and proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated before the Judicial Magistrate-X. Karachi-South wherein Arshad R. Jafferi and Defendant Nos. 1 and 8 contested the matter and in the inquiry conducted by Judicial Magistrate, it was proved that at the time of the seal of property the Defendant No. 8 was in possession, as such, vide order of the Magistrate, dated 29-9-2002 the property was ordered to be de-sealed and be handed over to Defendant No. 1. In pursuance of the order dated 27-9-2002 the possession of the property in question was handed over by Hasnain Raza, S-I.P. of P.S. Artillery Maidan to Defendant No. 1 vide mashirnama dated 28-9-2002. The order passed by the Magistrate dated 27-9-2002 was not challenged by the plaintiff before the competent Court, which shows that evidence recorded by the Magistrate was admitted by the plaintiff, which without any iota of doubt shows that the plaintiff's director Arshad R. Jaffri never remained in possession of the demised premises, even the remaining alleged directors of the plaintiffs company did not contest the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. which also shows that they were not interested to support the claim of Arshad R. Jafferi, being director of the plaintiffs company regarding his possession over the property in question.

All the contents of the plaint and the evidence available on record, therefore show that at no point of time, Arshad R. Jaffri being director of the company remained in possession over the shop in question.

The plaintiff in prayer clause (a) have sought the declaration to the effect of their tenancy with Defendant Nos. 1 to 6, but fact remains that the plaintiff were in knowledge about the execution of transfer of tenancy rights by his father in favour of Defendant No. 7, and the present suit has been filed belatedly after about five years of registration of transfer deed in favour of Defendant No. 7 and no explanation has been put forward by the plaintiff for seeking such declaration after inordinate  delay,  as  such  there  exists no privity of contract in between

      B

the parties, therefore, the plaintiff possesses no legal character to maintain the suit against Defendant Nos. 1 to 6.

The plaintiff admittedly has also not filed any resolution passed by the board of directors thereby authorizing him to sign, verify and present the plaint and the plaint shows that Arshad R. Jaffri has filed the plaint without any lawful authority as such the plaint has not been presented properly. In case, if any authority is needed, reference may be had to the case reported in PLD 1971 SC 550 wherein Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe that non-filing of resolution by the board of directors thereby authorizing any director or person of the firm to file the suit, was not proper presentation of the suit.

The plaintiff has also sought cancellation of registered instrument namely: undertaking/transfer of tenancy rights in favour of Defendant No. 7 vide registered deed dated 31-10-1997 which falls under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act and the period to file the suit for cancellation of such document is provided as three years under Article 91 of the Limitation Act from the date when the facts become known to him. The plaintiff in his plaint has admitted the execution of undertaking by deceased Agha Mohsin Jaffri. In view of Para. 23 of the plaint, it is, therefore, evident that plaintiff Arshad R. Jaffri was very much within his knowledge about execution and registration of undertaking/transfer of tenancy rights in favour of Defendant No. 7 and the present suit has been presented on 27-9-2002 which shows that the suit has been filed much after the expiry of limitation period, as such, the suit regarding cancellation of registered document executed on 31-10-1997 is barred under Article 91 of the Limitation Act. The said prayer, therefore, could not be granted finally.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also not pointed out any violation of the order passed by this Court so as to take any action against the defendants nor has seriously argued his application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. as such the application filed by him seems to be for ulterior motives.

The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants supports the case of the defendants. CM.A. No. 6871/05 therefore merits no consideration and is hereby dismissed.

In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff's firm is not maintainable in law, as such, the application is allowed and plaint is rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. with no order as to cost. All the remaining applications listed with these applications are also dismissed in view of observation made above.

(R.A.)      Plaint rejected.