1. The only point which arises in this appeal for consideration is:- Whether the plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action.

2. Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the appellants, Shri. Shivan Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondents No.1,2,4 and 5, and Shri. S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.6 to 8 and examined the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates.

3. The appellant had filed the suit praying for a decree for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondents No.1 to 5. The respondents No.1 to 4 had filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for rejection of the plaint on the following grounds :

(i) There is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff in the absence of any privity of contract spelt or brought out in the plaint.

(ii) That the original defendants No.6 to 9 have been impleaded as parties to the suit without any reason, only to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit was filed.

(iii) That the suit was under-valued.

4. The learned trial Judge, by the impugned order, concluded that there is no cause of action in favour of the appellant-original plaintiff and that the suit was under-valued. The learned trial Judge rejected the plaint on the ground that the appellant-original plaintiff had no cause of action to maintain and prosecute the civil suit. The appellant being aggrieved by the above mentioned order passed by the learned trial Judge, has filed this appeal.

5. Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the appellant-original plaintiff has no cause of action in its favour. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Advocate has submitted that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplate the rejection of the plaint only if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following Judgments:

(1) AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2140, in the case of State of Orissa vs. Klockner and Company and others;

(2) AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3085, in the case of M/s. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., vs. Ganesh Property, and

(3) (2004) 9 SCC 512, in the case of Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I and another.

6. Shri Shivan Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the learned trial Judge has properly considered the facts of the case and after appreciating the pleadings in the plaint, has properly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no cause of action in its favour and, therefore, the impugned order is proper. The learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the trial Court while considering the application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is enjoined with a duty to examine that the plaint discloses clear right to sue, and it is not manifestly vexatious and meritless. The learned Advocate has submitted that the trial Court has to see whether the plaint is cleverly drafted to create the illusion of a cause of action and if it is found accordingly, then the illegality has to be nipped in the bud. In support of this submission, he relied on the judgment reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467, in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and another.

The submission on behalf of the respondent No.4 is that there is no privity of contract between the appellant-original plaintiff and the respondents No.1 to 5 and the original plaintiff has created an illusion by crafty pleadings which has been properly see