MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this order I shall dispose of I.A No. 8565/2008 filed by defendant no. 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for rejection of the plaint.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the present suit questioning the presence of Defendant no. 4 on Indian territory, who allegedly escaped to India from China, and who was proclaimed to be the 17th Karmapa as per the Kagyu School of Tibetan Budhism. As per the plaintiff, another child had been proclaimed as the 17th Karmapa, but the same has never been recognized as such as he was born in India and hence is not of Tibetan origin. The plaintiff has alleged that the authenticity of defendant no. 4 is very much suspect as a medical examination of defendant no. 4 was carried out by Post Graduate Medical Institute at Chandigarh whereby the biological age of the said defendant, who had been asserted by defendant no. 3, the Dalai Lama, to be of a mere 15 years of age was determined to be a full grown adult of 24-26 years. Further, the plaintiff has alleged that as per the DVD?s submitted by him, it will be amply clear that defendant no. 4 has been intentionally placed by the People?s Republic of China in keeping with China?s larger scheme of secession of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh and eventually, annexation of the entire Himalayan region.

3. The plaintiff has also submitted that the Government of China has made a statement to the effect that defendant no. 4 is in India to collect the Black Vajra Crown and other religious objects from the Rumtek Monastery to bring the same to the Tibetan Autonomous Region in China. In addition to this, in May 1997 the Chief Secretary Sikkim had submitted a report to the Intelligence Bureau, CBI as well as to defendant nos. 1 and 2, i.e. the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs respectively and the same has been completely ignored by the said two defendants. The said report explained the existence of a long term game plan of China to annex the Buddhist Himalayan Region of India. It also stated that through the selection of defendant no. 4 as the 17th Karmapa, the Government of China was targeting the soft underbelly of the country, using religion to bring about the secession of Sikkim from India. Despite all these clear evidences, defendant nos. 1 and 2 did nothing to verify either the identity or the age of defendant no. 4 and granted full protection to the same based on the name, goodwill and assertions of defendant no. 3 thereby allowing a possible anti-state element to not only reside in the country but in fact, to reside in the country with full protection of the Government. On February 2, 2001, defendant nos. 1 and 2 granted refugee status to defendant no. 4 in violation of Article 32 of the International Convention on Refugees, 1951.

4. Defendant no. 4 has filed the present application stating that the plaintiff has no enforceable civil right and as such, no cause of action. It is also submitted that as the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter, the suit is barred under Section 41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

5. The plaintiff, however, has stated he belongs to the Karma Kagyu sect of Buddhism and that the 17th Karmapa has been appointed as the head of this sect by virtue of a „prediction letter? written by the 16th Karmapa. There are various questions raised by the plaintiff, viz. whether there is a letter as alleged, whether it bears the hand writing of the 16th Karmapa, whether the contents of the letter are genuine or not. These questions are stated to effect the plaintiff in his personal capacity as he doubts the authenticity of the appointed Karmapa and in fact believes that the same is dangerous for the security of Indian territory.

6. The plaintiff has contended that he has the right to profess and practice any religion and the right to profess a religion includes the right to raise an objection if a