JUDGMENT:

1. These applications are filed by defendant nos. 11 and 12, defendant nos. 4, 3 and 19, respectively, under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) for rejection of the plaint. The suit is filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to all the benefits in lieu of the construction carried out by them under the slum rehabilitation scheme, and, in the alternative, prayed for the handing over of the constructed area. The plaintiffs also prayed for monetary compensation in lieu of the construction carried out and prayed for damages in terms of the construction carried out and the cost incurred by them. The plaintiffs have bifurcated their prayers regarding their entitlement, based on the original agreement appointing them as the developer. According to the plaintiffs, they are subjected to and victimised by fraud and conspiracy by the defendants and that they are illegally removed as the developer in the slum rehabilitation schemes and a blaklisted developer is appointed.

2. The applications are filed on the grounds that there is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is barred for non- compliance with the mandatory prov