Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in the present appeals is to the common impugned order dated 25.8.2008 in terms whereof the applications filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Sitting as an Appellate Court, we need not again re-write the entire reasoning as contained in the impugned order and with which we fully agree. However, in gist, the facts and issues which have been decided by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order are that:-

(i) Merely because certain facts alleged in the plaint show violation of the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and for which, remedy is provided under the Information Technology Act, would not mean that a plaint which contains various other cause of actions and other reliefs based on the cause of actions, should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(ii) A part of a plaint cannot be rejected.

3. The suits which were filed in the original side of this court by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff sought the reliefs of injunction restraining infringement of copyright and breach of confidentiality, mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts and damages. The substratum of the case as la