1. The matter has been heard on 11.09.2008 and thereafter on 12.9.2008. It was required to be kept today for judgment as Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the non-applicant wanted to cite some authority from Corporate Law Advisor reported at 1994 (13) Corporate Law Advisor 405. Xerox copy is made available and after going through it, the learned counsel did not press the ruling into service.

2. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the order dated 11.09.2003 passed below Exh. 11 by 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No.1051 of 2003 rejecting the application filed by present revision applicants under Order 7, Rule 11 (a), (b) and (c) of Civil Procedure Code. The application also contain a prayer in alternative to issue direction to present non-applicant to correct valuation of his suit and to pay the deficit Court fees. The revision came to be admitted and interim stay to further proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No.1051 of 2003 has been granted.

3. For the purposes of present revision, it is not in dispute that the present non-applicant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1051 of 2003 for declaration and permanent injunction basically challenging cancellation of Power of Attorney in his favour executed by present non-applicant on 9.3.2001 and registered on 12.3.2001. The further prayer is to declare it as irrevocable Power of Attorney and to declare public notice dated 21.7.2003 issued by the non-applicant revoking said Power of Attorney to be illegal. A permanent injunction restraining them from revoking said Power of Attorney was also sought with further relief of restraining them from creating any third party interest or alienating suit property. The non-applicant pointed out that present applicants (original defendants) are owners of plot of land and he is a Managing Director of EMAAR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. He states that an Agreement of Development and Sale in relation to this property was entered into between parties on 09.03.2001. As per terms of Agreement and Development, amount of Rs.3,35,00,000/- has been paid from time to time by non-applicant to present applicants on behalf of EMAAR Developers and Builders company, mentioned above.

4. Along with this suit, the application for grant of temporary injunction was also moved. The present revision applicants filed their reply to that application and also filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, pointing out that plaint as filed did not disclose any cause of action, that suit ought to have been for specific performance and ought to have been valued at Rs.4.80 Crores because that was the loss sought to be avoided. By reply, the present non-applicant opposed that application and on 11.09.2003, after hearing both sides, the impugned order came to be passed. The learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, found that the challenge to cancellation of Power of Attorney was not susceptible to any monetary evaluation and as such the valuation under Section 6(iv)(j) of Bombay Court Fees Act, was proper. It further found that through Power of Attorney, a right in addition to terms and conditions of Agreement of Development and Sale was created and in suit, the terms and conditions of Agreement of Sale were not in dispute and plaintiff was not claiming any charge over suit property. While considering the provisions of Section 202 of Indian Contract Act, it expressed that it was necessary to note that cause of action was specifically pleaded in plaint and hence on the basis of vague allegations in application under Order 7, Rule 11, the plaint could not have been rejected. It found that the Agreement of Development and Sale was between plaintiff i.e. Managing Director and defendants and an agency was created in favour of the Company. It also found that right was created in individual and notice of revocation, therefore, gave individual c