Miniscule fraction of cause of action is not enough to file the suit.

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Application No.2450 of 2007 is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., to reject the plaint in C.S. No. 590 of 2006 and Application No.2894 of 2006 is an application to revoke the leave to sue granted to the plaintiff in Application No.2726 of 2006 in C.S. No. 590 of 2006, by an order dated 8. 2006. Both these applications have been taken out by the second defendant.

2. I have heard Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appli-cant/second defendant and Mr. T.V. Ramanujun, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The facts leading to the institution of the above suit, as culled out from the plaint are as follows:

.(a) that the plaintiff is an Association registered under The Uttar Pradesh (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Association) Act, 2005, having its Registered Office at Lucknow and it claims to be the Central Body for the Control of the Game of Cricket in the State of Uttar Pradesh;

.(b) that the first defendant is the Board of Control for Cricket in India (B.C.C.I.) which is a body controlling the Game of Cricket in India;

.(c) that the second defendant (the applicant in this application) is an Association registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956;

.(d) that the second defendant was originally a Society registered under The Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the same represented the State of Uttar Pradesh before the first defendant B.C.C.I.;

.(e) that when the State of Uttar Pradesh promulgated an Ordinance known as Uttar Pradesh Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Ordinance, 2004, hereinafter referred to as the Sports Ordinance, mandating all Sports Associations to register themselves under the said Ordinance, the second defendant challenged the validity of the said Ordinance in a writ petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and obtained an interim stay of the operation of the said Ordinance;

(f) that the Ordinance lapsed by efflux of time, resulting in the writ petition becoming infructuous, but the legislature subsequently enacted the Uttar Pradesh Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the Sports Act;

.(g) that the second defendant challenged the validity of the said Act also in another writ petition W.P. No. 30545 of 2005 and obtained an interim stay of operation of the said Act to the limited extent of preventing any coercive actions against the second defendant under the impugned Act;

.(h) that in the meantime, the second defendant got itself registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and informed the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur, about the incorporation of the Company and the transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the Society, to the newly created Company;

.(i) that the registration of the Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association (second defendant), as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, came to an end on 10. 2005 and no Certificate of renewal of registration was granted to them by the Registrar of Societies;

.(j) that the factum of dissolution of the Society and the incorporation of a new Company were suppressed by the second defendant in the writ petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court and also from a Special Observer appointed by the Honble Supreme Court t B.C.C.I. (first defendant);

.(k) that thereafter, the plaintiff applied for recognition and registration under the Sports Act, 2005 and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, granted registration to the plaintiff under the Sports Act,

.(l) that by virtue of such registration, the plaintiff has 50 out of 70 District Cricket Associations as its members;

.(m) that thereafter, the plaintiff submitted a representation to the Observer appointed by the Honble Supreme Court, requesting him to permit the plaintiff to participate and vote in the Annual