The court emphasized that the suit cannot be rejected under Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act when there is a dispute regarding the execution of the distributor agreement itself.

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.899 of 2013 in O.S.No.585 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.585 of 2013 for the following reliefs:

"(a) For a relief of declaration to declare that the stoppage of supply to the plaintiff from September 2012, by the defendant is null and void ab-initio, arbitrary, colourable, irrational, malafide, biased and against principles of natural justice;

(b) for a relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to immediately restore the supply of the stocks regularly to the plaintiff's concern Shreem Enterpraises without any reservations;

(c) for costs of the suit; and

(d) for such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case"

3. The brief averments stated in the plaint are as follows:

According to the plaintiff, they are running a registered partnership firm and have been doing business in dealing with Johnson and Johnson hospital products. The plaintiff is an authorized dealer for Johnson and Johnson for Tiruchirappalli District for more than 12 years. The plaintiff firm established and developed the sales of Johnson and Johnson products from Rs.One Lakh per month in 1999 to more than Rs.Twenty Lakhs per month. This business is the sole livelihood of the partners of the firm and they do not know any other business to do. At the time of taking partnership from the defendants to promote their products, the Officials of the defendant obtained the signature of the administrator on behalf of the partners in certain filled and unfilled forms. The plaintiff has no knowledge about the distributorship agreement dated 08.12.2010. The plaintiff relied upon a report published in a weekly namely Kumutham Reporter, which published a news item against the products of Johnson and Johnson.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, a few years ago, Johnson and Johnson had sent a circular to all its dealers stating that they had information from the market that spurious products of Prolene Mesh were available in the market wherein they described the differences between the original and spurious products. According to the plaintiff, without any reasonable reasons and without any cause but with malafide intention, the defendant Company suspended the supply of stocks to the plaintiff firm. By the act of the defendant, the plaintiff firm was put to hardship.

4. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for the above mentioned reliefs. After the receipt of the suit summons, the defendants filed their written statement on 19.09.2013. Thereafter on 05.02.2014, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.899 of 2013 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.899 of 2013, the defendant has stated as follows:

According to the defendant, the plaintiff approached them seeking to be appointed as one of its distributors in India. Accordingly the plaintiff was appointed as distributor of the defendant and such appointment was always for a specific period of time and subject to reappointment thereafter. The last such appointment of the plaintiff was made in 2010 on the terms and conditions specified in distributor agreement dated 08.12.2010. The said distributor agreement was valid for a period of three years i.e. upto 08.12.2013. Further the distributor agreement provided for termination of the appointment of the plaintiff as a distributor of the defendant by giving 30 days notice to the plaintiff without assigning any reason whatsoever. The agreement also provided for immediate termination of the appointment of the plaintiff as a distributor of the defendant under certain circumstances such as breach of terms of t