A plaint can be rejected as vexatious if it does not disclose a cause of action or if it is otherwise vexatious or absurd. A claim for defamation is barred by limitation if it is filed more than a year after the publication of the defamatory statement.

1. THE defendant has taken out the Master's Summons for rejection of the plaint relating to the suit on the ground that it discloses no cause of action. The defendant says that the suit is otherwise vexatious and in abuse of process and such a ground can be read into Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. THE plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 are engaged in the manufacture of medicine and paper. The plaintiff nos. 3 and 4 are directors of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2. The defendant, at the time of the institution of the suit, was the financial adviser of the Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (the corporation). The plaintiffs say that the acts and conduct of the defendant they complain of were not commensurate with his position and status and he misused his authority as an officer of the Corporation to go out of his way to cause prejudice to the plaintiffs. Upon default in repayment to the Corporation by a company that obtained credit facilities from it, the Corporation took over its assets in accordance with law and invited offers for the sale of such assets. The plaintiff no. 1, through the director plaintiffs, made an offer for purchase of the assets and an agreement was entered into in November, 1993 for the sale of the assets held by the corporation and another State Financial Corporation at a consideration of Rs. 50 lakh. The plaintiffs obtained possession of the factory and its equipment situated in Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in January, 1994. The plaintiff no. 1 requested the corporation that the assets relating to the paper business at Solan be transferred to the second plaintiff. An agreement was executed in August, 1994 between the second plaintiff, the Corporation and the other financial corporation by which the land, plant and machinery at Solan were sold in favour of the second plaintiff for rs. 50 lakh. It is claimed that the first plaintiff had already paid a quarter of the consideration prior to the agreement of August, 1994 and the second plaintiff was thus to pay Rs. 37. 50 lakh which it agreed to pay in ten half-yearly instalments beginning November, 1994 and ending May, 1999. The plaint refers to this transaction as the first premises.

3. THE plaintiffs allege that after the plaintiffs acquired the Solan property, an officer of the Corporation approached the plaintiffs to purchase the property held by another sick debtor of the corporation. The plaintiffs say that such proposed second transaction did not go through because of illegalities noticed by the plaintiffs in the functioning of the sick debtor company and the complicity of the corporation's officers in the acts of illegality.

4. THE plaint proceeds to record that in August, 1994 the plaintiffs purchased the property of another sick debtor (not being the defaulter that the Corporation's officials proposed the plaintiffs buy) of the Corporation with the plaintiff no. 1 purchasing the land and building and the second plaintiff acquiring the plant and machinery of what is described by the plaintiffs as the second premises. Two agreements were entered into between the relevant plaintiffs on the one hand and the Corporation and the other financial corporation on the other. The plaintiffs were to pay a total consideration of Rs. 82 lakh for the second premises. Between the first and second plaintiffs they paid Rs. 20,50,000/- being a quarter of the amount payable in respect of the second premises; with the balance being treated as loan by the Corporation and the other financial corporation, repayable in instalments. The plaintiffs say that the agreements relating to the second premises required the plaintiffs to be made over possession thereof and the corporation and the other financial corporation being obliged to ensure an atmosphere which permitted smooth and efficient running of the unit at the second premises. The plaintiffs complain that neither corporation acted in terms of its obligations relating to