Manmohan Singh, J.

1. By this order, I propose to decide the defendant No. 1's application under Order VII, Rule-11(a) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint on the ground of lack of cause of action against defendant No. 1.

2. The plaintiff filed the present suit for mandatory injunction and alternatively recovery of suit property and mesne profits.

3. Plaintiff's Case

(a) The plaintiff is the joint owner of the stock company incorporated under Russian Laws, having its registered office in Russia. The suit is filed through Mr. Mirzayanovich Mirzayanov, duly constituted person of the company. Defendant No. 1 is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Laws. Defendant No. 2 is a company under the laws of Russian Federation.

(b) Defendant No. 2 entered into a contract dated 24.4.2005 which is herein after mentioned as the "Supply Contract" with defendant No. 1 for supply of two MI-172 Helicopters which are to be supplied to defendant No. 1. For maintenance of the delivered helicopters, defendant No. 2 entered into a contract dated 07.07.2005, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance Contract", with defendant No. 1.

(c) The plaintiff states that it is a "confirming party" with regard to the maintenance contract and in view thereof, the plaintiff delivered its own equipments, spare parts and tools for the maintenance of the said helicopters to defendant No. 1 at IGI Airport, New Delhi. The equipments, spare parts and tools are hereinafter referred to as the "suit property".

(d) As per the terms and conditions of the maintenance contract, defendant No. 1 was obliged to provide necessary customs clearance and formalities in India for import and re-export of the suit property subsequent transportation to and from Itanagar and provide secure room for safe keeping of the suit property. In May, 2007, defendant No. 2 terminated the maintenance contract with defendant No. 1 in accordance with clauses 2.09 and 3.08 and requested defendant No. 1 to return the suit property as to dispatch the same to Russia.

4. It is stated by the plaintiff that despite of various written requests by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1 by way of letters exchanged between them, dated 28th May 2007, 5th June 2007, 18th June 2007, 12th July 2007, 31st July 2007, 3rd September 2007 and 24th January 2008, defendant No. 1 failed to deliver the suit property. Thus, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. It is also stated by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 is having illegal possession of the suit property without any authorization or consent from plaintiff or defendant No. 2 who has, without consent, transferred part of the suit property out of Itanagar for its own use, as admitted by defendant No. 1 in correspondence exchanged with defendant No. 2 in its letters dated 06.07.2007 & 16.07.2007.

5. Before filing the present suit, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 19.08.2008 to defendant No. 1. Even an agent was also sent to recover the suit property. However, defendant No. 1 refused to return the suit property, except on 05.09.2008 the plaintiff received defendant No. 1's reply to the legal notice.

6. As per the plaintiff, the current market value of the suit property is USD 469,492 equivalent to Rs. 2,11,27,140/- (Rupees two crores eleven lakhs twenty seven thousand one hundred forty only), and the plaintiff has also suffered a loss who has also claimed compensation from defendant No. 1 equivalent to Rs. 24,30,000/-.

7. After filing the written statement, defendant No. 1 has filed the present application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. The defendant No. 1 states that plaintiff has deliberately suppressed material facts, as supply contract dated 24.4.2005 and the maintenance contract dated 7.7.2005 were only executed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, the plaintiff is merely a stranger to the contract and has no locus standi to file the pres