The main legal point established is that a plaint must disclose a cause of action, and vague allegations without specific facts do not suffice.

VINOD K. SHARMA, J

1. The applicant / defendant no.2 has moved this application under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, r/w Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for rejection of the plaint in C.S.No.734 of 2011.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is, that the plaint was liable to be rejected against applicant / defendant no.2, in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for non disclosure of cause of action.

3. The further contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that except for vague allegation of conspiracy, the plaint does not disclose any facts, which, if taken with the law applicable, would give plaintiff the right or liberty to file suit against the applicant / defendant.

4. In order to appreciate this contention, it will be necessary to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the plaint, on which reliance was placed, by the learned counsel for the parties, i.e. para nos. 8, 11(iii), 16, 20, 22 and 23 as under:

"8. The plaintiff respectfully submits that since the child had behavioural problem and emotionally disturbed had been communicated by the Cheshire Homes that they needed immediate personal attention. So, the plaintiff had verified all the applications of proposed adoptive parents registered for adopting a child through the 2nd defendant. Among the applications, pending before the 2nd defendant the plaintiff had selected one which was submitted by Ms.Gemma Bridget DSilva, who is working as District Social

Welfare Officer, Department of Social Welfare, Chennai and considered as fit person for adoption by the 2nd defendant. The child was given to Ms.Gemma Bridget DSilva, after taking an undertaking from her dated 08.02.2010 by the 2nd defendant that the child is handed over to Ms.Gemma Bridget DSilva in foster care for development and medical reasons as she was 4 years and 5 months old. Since all the legal procedures were not completed for adoption of the said child, the pre-adoptive foster care of the child Sweety was given to the said adoptive parent by the 2nd defendant based on the direction of the apex court and the guidelines of Central Adoption Resource Authority. Before granting the pre adoptive foster care of the child, the plaintiff herein had explained the legal implications to the parents and the latter willingly agreed to help the child needing personal care and protection.

11(iii)). The Additional Deputy Commissioner enquired as to what the plaintiff was and what her profession was. The plaintiff replied that she is a Social Worker employed in the Adoption Unit of Guild of Service, (Central). Then the Commissioner informed the plaintiff that there was complaint against the plaintiff with regard to alleged child trafficking etc., by a certain parent of a child escorted by Dr.D.P.Manorama, the 1st defendant who was misusing her official position. When the Commissioner further enquired as to why the plaintiff was indulging in giving children on adoption who are left behind by biological parents. The plaintiff replied that it was her job and the plaintiff is employed in the Adoption Unit. Then the Commissioner asked for the procedure on adoption and official documents relating to the procedure. To this the plaintiff had replied that the documents could not be removed at this late night and assured that the same would be made available along with the procedure on adoption on 19.06.2010. Afterwards the Commissioner told the plaintiff to give references of authorities in the State Social Welfare department, so as to verify the real facts on adoption procedure. At this the plaintiff gave the cell number of Assistant Director of Social welfare. The Commissioner spoke with her through the cell phone. At the end the Commissioner had instructed the plaintiff to make available the copy of documents and while doing so the Commissioner returned the plaintiff cell phone seized earlier. Then the Commissioner had a