PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) PRESENT order disposes of IA No. 956/2004 filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant invoking provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also IA No. 4174/2004 filed by the defendant invoking provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) SINCE survival of the suit in this court would be a condition precedent for deciding under Order 12 Rule 6, it would be advisable to first dispose of defendants application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 3 ) AS per IA No. 4174/2004, it is stated by the defendant that the suit merits rejection for the reasons:-

6. THAT it is borne out from a plain perusal of the averments in the plaint that the Plaintiffs are seeking both the above mentioned reliefs i. e. recovery of rs. 20,00,500/- and mandatory injunction directing commanding and requiring the defendant to discharge all claims and demands of Delhi Vidyut Board and its successor BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. in respect of electricity connection K. No. 521706 and K. No. 5204836 which admittedly pertain to the period prior to 1991 and both the reliefs are clearly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under limitation Act, 1963 accordingly both the reliefs are hopelessly barred by law of limitation and the Plaintiffs as well as the supplier s right to sue had been extinguished long time ago by operation of law of limitation therefore, the entire plaint is liable to be rejected under mandatory provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC.

7. That otherwise also the plaintiffs are seeking the relief No. (iv) in a clever manner to create the illusion of cause of action for mandatory injunction in favour of third parties without making them parties to the present suit deliberately though they are necessary and proper parties to the suit and on meaningful reading of the plaint it is manifestly clear that plaint does not disclose a right to sue in favour of the Plaintiffs therefore, the entire plaint is liable to be rejected under mandatory provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC.

8. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the relief No. (iv) sought in the suit are barred by express provisions of Section 41 (i) of Specific relief Act, 1963 because the Plaintiffs claiming to be the owners of the suit property have admittedly defaulted in payment of property tax to the tune of over Rs. 50 lacs resulting the proposed sale of suit property in auction by MCD and electricity dues over Rs. 20 lacs as registered consumer resulting disconnection of electricity to the premises in 1991 consequently, the conduct of the Plaintiffs has disentitled them to the relief No. (iv) i. e. mandatory injunction under section 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 in respect of relief, hence the entire plaint is liable to be rejected.

9. That the plaint does not disclose a cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the reliefs Nos. (ii) and (iv) and moreover, both the reliefs are hopelessly barred by law of limitation therefore, such a suit should not be allowed to continue and go for trial and it is liable to be nipped in bud by throwing it out at the very threshold.

10. That since mere perusal of the plaint leaves no doubt that both the reliefs no. (ii) and (iv) are clearly barred by law of limitation and the provisions of section 41 (i) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 the plaint has to be rejected as whole as part only of a plaint can not be rejected.

( 4 ) IT is trite that to decide under Order 7 Rule 11, averments in the plaint have to be read without looking at the defence and thereupon it has to be seen whether on the averments made in the plaint, Order 7 Rule 11 gets attracted or not.

( 5 ) SUIT is for ejectment and mesne profits/use of occupation charges and damages. Prayer made in the suit is as under:-

(I) a decree against Defendant for ejectment from the suit premises being ground floor portion of the building constructed on Plot No. B-87, Mayapuri I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document