Rule returnable forthwith.

2. Heard with consent of parties.

3. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff.

4. The facts are as follows:

Plaintiff is the Chief Promoter of Society known as Seth Kisanlalji Goenka Puram Akola. The Society entered into a contract of purchase of land with respondents. The defendant/respondent No.1 was not ready to perform his part of the contract. Plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit for specific performance of contract.

5. Defendant had filed Written Statement and had resisted the suit. We are not much concerned with the contention in the Written Statement. Issues were framed by the trial Court and trial Court even recorded part of evidence. The suit is instituted in the year 1989 but the defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 1 Rule 8 Civil Procedure Code on 29/06/2006.

6. Trial Court heard this application and allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by this rejection of plaint this appeal has been preferred.

7. I have heard both sides.

8. The main contention of the defendant No.1 in the application is that Society has been formed and it is not registered. It is, therefore, merely a body