1. A cause of action exists when a plaintiff has a bundle of facts that, if proven, would entitle them to a remedy from the court. 2. The limitation period for a suit for damages for wrongful delivery of goods is two years from the date of delivery.

BADARDURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS application has been moved by the defendant no. 4 (Gulf Air), under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint on two grounds: (1) The plaint does not disclose any cause of action as against the defendant No. 4, (2) The suit as against defendant No. 4 is not maintainable as being time barred. The Background:

( 2 ) THE plaint was originally filed at Ludhiana on 1. 10. 1993. It was numbered as S. No. 458/1993. The defendant No. 4 (Gulf Air) had filed an application, inter alia, objecting to the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and there being no cause of action disclosed against it. That application was dismissed by the Court at Ludhiana. The defendant No. 4 preferred a Civil Revision before the Punjab and haryana High Court which decided the same in favour of the defendant No. 4 on 7. 9. 1999. In other words, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Court at Ludhiana did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the constitution of India before the Supreme Court. The same was dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court. As a consequence, the Court at Ludhiana, on 12. 10. 2000, returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation of the same in a Court of competent jurisdiction. This is apparent from the endorsement made on the reverse of page 1 of the plaint which also bears the seal of the Court of the Civil Judge, senior Division, Ludhiana. Within 18 days of the return of the plaint, the same was filed in this Court on 30. 10. 2000. The plaintiff s case as set out in the plaint:

( 3 ) THE suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs. 22,39,450/- representing a principal amount of Rs. 19,59,250/- and interest with effect from 15. 12. 1992 to 30. 9. 1993 amounting to Rs. 2,80,200/ -. The recovery of the aforesaid amount has been sought as representing the price of goods (including interest) allegedly supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants 1 and 2. Upon a reading of the plaint in its entirety, the case of the plaintiff appears to be that the defendants I and 2 placed orders on the plaintiff in respect of certain cotton and woollen products. The defendants 1 and 2 are carrying on business as importers and dealers of cotton and cotton textiles as well as woollen products from their place of business at manchester, U. K. There are averments contained in the plaint to the effect that the contract was with defendant No. 1 who purportedly had assigned it to defendant no. 2 that the plaintiff had not consented to the said assignment. Insofar as a decision on this application is concerned, it is not necessary for me to go into these aspects and 1 am proceeding on the basis that defendants 1 and 2 are essentially one party. The plaintiff has alleged that the arrangement was that the goods shall be supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants 1 and 2 at Manchester against a Letter of Credit. The goods were to be transported by carriers including the defendant No.

( 4 ) THE Letter of Credit was to be negotiated against various documents presented to the defendant No. 3. These documents included the original Airway Bill, invoices, Packing List etc. It is alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint that pursuant to the terms between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2, on or about 14. 12. 1992 the plaintiff delivered to the defendant No. 4 (Gulf Air) for onward transmission to the defendant No. 1 diverse quantities of goods covered by various order numbers for a total c. i. f. Value of U. S. $ 60,440. It is further stated in the said paragraph 11 that the said delivery was evidenced by the Airway Bill No. 072-2468 dated 14. 12. 1992. In paragraph 17 of the plaint it is averred that by a letter dated 21. 1. 1993 the defendant No. 6 informed the plaintiff that defendant No. 3 had purported to reject the documents which were furnished by the plaintiff for receiving payment under the Letter of Credit.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document