MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (referred to as „CPC? for brevity) being I.A. No. 1787/2009. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration and injunction with the following prayers:-

[a] pass a decree of declaration declaring that the Defendant acting through its Executive Committee and or office bearers, has no right whatsoever to distribute complimentary tickets and or passes or duty and gold cards, etc.; and

[b] pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant acting through its Executive Committee and or any office bearers and from any person representing defendant from printing, publishing and or distributing any complimentary tickets or passes or any duty or any gold cards etc., for the purpose of entry of any person into the stadium, for any event/match whether national or international;

2. When the suit and the pending applications were listed before the Court on 17th March, 2006 this Court passed the following orders :-

“...............

The learned counsel for the defendant as well as Mr.Jaitley who appears in his capacity as President of Delhi and District Cricket Association assure this court that the number of seats that would be put to public sale in the forthcoming one day match between India and England on 28.03.2006 would be the highest that has ever been subjected to sale in the history of this Stadium. He further states that he would make earnest efforts to maximise the number of tickets which are put up for sale to the general public. He also assures this court that the revenues expected from the sale of the tickets would be the highest that has ever been collected and he says that an endeavour is being made to target revenues of Rs.5 crores from sale of tickets of the forthcoming match. Mr.Jaitley also states that various steps would be taken to ensure that genuine ticket holders who have paid for the same would be allowed comfortable entry into the stadium. The learned counsel for the defendant states that an appropriate affidavit would be filed before the next date of hearing indicating the exact status with regard to the tickets which have been issued complimentary as well as sold in the said match..........”

3. The defendant filed the affidavit in compliance with the above-stated order. However, the plaintiffs raised the objection that the affidavit dated 18th April, 2006 filed by the defendant did not fully comply with the said order.

4. Vide order dated 7th May, 2007 the defendant was given further six weeks time to file the complete affidavit by placing the information about the sale of tickets on record. Subsequently, the said affidavit in compliance with the said order has been filed by the defendant.

5. When the matter was again listed before the court on 31st March, 2008 a contention was raised by the defendant that during the pendency of the present proceedings, another suit instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant being CS (OS) No.1288/2005 had been disposed of in terms of order dated 18th December, 2007 wherein the Chairman-cum-Election Officer was appointed to call for the A.G.M. of the defendant and hold an election of the Executive Committee and, therefore, the present suit had become infructuous.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant at that stage denied the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit was rendered infructuous on the reason that although the Executive Committee and office bearers of the defendant who had become functus officio were still proceeding to issue complimentary tickets and passes for the purpose of entry of any person into the stadium.

7. In the meantime, the defendant filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint mainly on the ground as mentioned earlier in the preceding para of the order. Secondly, it is contended in the application that as regards the complimenta