SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying for passing of decree of declaration against the defendants declaring that the communication dated 22nd August, 2005 is illegal, void, mala-fide and is vitiated by falsehood and fraud. Plaintiffs had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short cpc ) being IA No. 7513/2005. On 22nd September, 2005 the Court passed the following order:"22. 9. 2005 present: Mr. Madan Bhatia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. N. Pandey and Mr. A. K. Sinha for the plaintiff ia 7514/2005 in CS (OS) 1339/2005 exemption prayed for allowed subject to just exceptions. The proper documents shall be filed within two months from today. IA stands disposed of. CS (OS) 1339/2005 issue summons by Registered AD, in the ordinary manner and Dasti as well, returnable on 3. 10. 2005. IA 7513/2005 issue notice, returnable on 3. 10. 2005. In the meanwhile the defendants are restrained from taking any cohesive steps in furtherance to the order dated 22. 8. 2005. Compliance to Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC be made within three days. In the event of default of service, interim protection shall be liable to be vacated. Order Dasti. September 22. 2005 Swatanter Kumar, J. "

( 2 ) THE case was adjourned to 3rd October, 2005 when the defendants appeared and they were granted time to file reply to the application and written statement. On that very day, the Counsel for the defendant had raised the argument that the plaint of the plaintiff was liable to be rejected and suit dismissed under order 7 Rules 10 and 11 of the CPC. Thus, the Court had directed the parties to argue that issue at the very first instance. Arguments under these provisions, thus, were heard on 7th November, 2005.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the defendants forcefully argued that the plaint of the plaintiffs is liable to be rejected and suit liable to be dismissed (under the provisions of Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 of the CPC) and the interim order granted to the plaintiffs vide order dated 22nd September, 2005 is thus, liable to be vacated, amongst others on the following grounds: (a) The relief of declaration prayed by the plaintiffs without claiming any consequential relief is barred under Section 34 of the Specific relief Act. (b) This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit as no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned letter dated 22nd August, 2005 was issued by the Bankers from Meerut to the office of the plaintiff at Ghaziabad and nothing in relation thereto had happened within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. (c) This plaintiffs have not paid the ad valorem Court-fee in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fee Act as the plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at rs. 24 crores but have paid the fixed Court fee of Rs. 20/-, claiming that the plaintiffs are liable to pay the fixed Court- fee of Rs. 20/- the suit being one for declaration.

( 4 ) IN order to examine the merit or otherwise of the contentions raised on behalf of the defendants for rejection of the plaint/dismissal of the suit at the very threshold of the proceedings, it will be necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to the present suit as they appear from the record.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff, which is a Charitable Educational Trust, having its registered office in the State of Tamil Nadu, have also an Educational Trust at Ghaziabad of which plaintiff No. 2 is the Chairman. A medical college under the name of santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad was started which was affiliated to choudhary Charan Singh University. According to the plaintiff, the college had the requisite permission from the Government as well as was duly approved by the medical College of India to impart medical education in terms of Section 8 of the indian Medical Counci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document