( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order passed on 07/01/2000 by learned Single Judge allowing the respondent s application (IA. 6510/99) for rejection of plaint and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.

( 2 ) FACTS in brief are that on 17/05/1999 the appellant filed a suit claiming decree against the respondent for specific performance of the contract or in the alternative for recovery of damages. The prayer clause reads:-

"pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to specifically perform the contract in the purchase order bearing No. 2093 dated 16/11/1998 for purchase of 6060 pieces of ladies garments of style No. 5523-RY 3d and further direct the defendant to take delivery of the same from the plaintiff against payment of US $ 40. 299 (US Dollar Forty thousand two hundred and ninety nine), or in the alternative if this Hon ble Court comes to the conclusions that specific performance is not to be decreed, to pass a decree against the defendant for damages in lieu of specific performance of US$ 40. 299 (US Dollars Forty thousand two hundred ninety nine) together with interest at 24% per both pendente lite and future till satisfaction. (2) In the alternative, in the event not decreeing specific performance pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of damages agreeing to Rs. 11. 50 lakhs (Rupees Eleven Lakhs fifty thousand) as detailed in para 27 of the plaint together with interest at 24% both pendente lite and future till satisfaction. "

( 3 ) AFTER the defendant was served in the suit, an application (IA. 6510/99) was filed by the respondent/defendant seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "civil Procedure Code") on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the respondent. The application was vehemently opposed by the appellant. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge held that the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit against the defendant. The suit against the defendant as an agent of its principal, who is a foreign buyer is not maintainable. The suit accordingly was dismissed as not maintainable against the defendant/respondent.

( 4 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that learned Single Judge lost sight of the important principle of law that at the stage when the defendant had not yet filed written statement, learned Single Judge ought and could not have gone into the merits and proceeded to record its finding on the question whether the plaintiff had a cause of action against the defendant or not. Jurisdiction of learned Single Judge at this Stage was only to ascertain and find out whether the facts, as alleged in the plaint, did not disclose any cause of action against the defendant. Instead of doing that learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the defence of the respondent as disclosed in its application under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code coupled with the accompanying documents and thereby finally farminated the suit holding that it is not maintainable against the respondent/defendant.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that a frivolous suit had been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and the Court was not powerless in having gone to the root of the case which was done with a view to avoid unnecessary harassment to the respondent, who had nothing to do with the transactions in question. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. Satyapal and Another, AIR 1977 SC 2421.

( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it will be necessary for us to examine critically the plaint and thereby the basis of the plaintiffs claim against the defendant. The p