A suit must comply with the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the Limitation Act, 1963, and must contain specific facts and individual grievances to enforce individual civil rights.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

IA No.1749/2018 (exemption from filing copy of order dated 8th December, 2016 and 29th January, 2018) and IA No.1750/2018 (for exemption).

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

CS(COMM) 265/2018 & IA No.1748/2018 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC).

3. The five plaintiffs namely Surinder Nayyar, S.N. Malhotra & Sons, Om Prakash, Ashish Kumar and Manish Nayyar have instituted this suit against the sole defendant South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) for (i) declaration that the recovery sought to be made by the defendant SDMC pursuant to Circular No.03/EE(P)-I/SDMC/2015-2015 dated 08.05.2014, Circular No. 03/EE(P)-I/SDMC/2015-2015 dated 08.05.2014 and Circular No.F.1/E-in-C/SDMC/2016/151 dated 31.07.2015 are illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside; and, (ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendant SDMC from recovering from the plaintiffs the reimbursement towards Third Party Quality Assurance charges paid to the plaintiffs.

4. It is the plea of the plaintiffs (i) that each of the five plaintiffs are contractors registered with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and have been executing several works with the MCD for past several years; (ii) that with a view to improve the quality of the works the MCD took a decision that in all works of MCD, Quality Assurance would be carried out by selected independent organisations other than MCD; (iii) that various circulars as detailed in the plaint were issued in this regard and the effect whereof was that the charges for such quality audit and testing shall be borne by the contractor and for which due weightage will be considered while arriving at the justification of rates and the same will be reflected in the notice inviting tenders and for the contracts for which such weightage is not given, the charges for quality audit and testing will be borne initially by the contractor but reimbursed to the contractor by the MCD; (iv) however the defendant SDMC being a successor of the MCD, has by the impugned circulars altered the provision earlier existing for reimbursement of the said charges; (v) that the five plaintiffs filed W.P.(C) No.10491/2015 impugning the said circulars and which was dismissed vide judgment dated 8th December, 2016; and, (vi) that LPA No.39/2017 preferred there against by the five plaintiffs was on 29th January, 2018 withdrawn with liberty to approach the Civil Court and the Division Bench also clarified that the observations in the judgment dated 8th December, 2016 shall not be treated as binding or conclusive in any manner whatsoever.

5. The plaintiffs, in the plaint have not given any particulars of any contract which any of the plaintiffs may have entered into with the defendant SDMC or its predecessor MCD and/or qua which claim for reimbursement has been denied.

6. I have thus enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs as to how a Civil Suit without any facts and without any personal/individual grievance of any of the plaintiffs and without pleading cloud over title if any claimed by any of the plaintiffs to any property, is maintainable.

7. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that it is pleaded in the plaint that each of the five plaintiffs is a contractor registered with the MCD/ defendant SDMC and has executed various contracts for the MCD/defendant SDMC.

8. However merely pleading so does not suffice. A plaint, in terms of Order VI and Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is required to contain a concise statement of facts leading to the cause of action and which is found to be absolutely missing in the present case. The plaintiffs have generally, without stating any particulars, pleaded having executed contracts. In fact, cause of action even is not pleaded.

9. The relief of declaration and injunction claimed in the suit is governed by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and vide Section 4 whereof specific relief can be granted only for the purpose of enforcing