The court emphasized the necessity of a clear cause of action for maintaining a suit, affirming the rejection of plaint when no such cause exists against a party.

1.The applicant who is original defendant No. 2 in Admiralty Suit No. 3 of 2003 has filed this application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the applicant and that the plaintiff can have no cause of action against the applicant.

2. It is the case of the original plaintiff, namely, Tower International Ltd. that they had purchased a quantity of 2000 MT of Crude Palm Oil and 1000 MT of Crude Plam Olein from New Continent Enterprises Pte Ltd., original defendant No. 3 on Cost and Freight terms basis delivery at Kandla under Contract dated 11-12-2002 and 24-1-2003 respectively. Payment was to be made by the original plaintiff to the original defendant No. 3 by telegraphic transfer within 35 days from the date of Bills of Lading. According to the original plaintiff, the original defendant No. 3 entered into an understanding with the applicant to send the Cargo through original defendant No. 1.

3. It is also the case of the original plaintiff that they have received 44 MT short as the original defendant No. 1 vessel had discharged 220 MT less than the total quantity of 15000 MT. According to the original plaintiff, as per their contract with original defendant No. 3, they were supposed to get in all 2000 MT Crude Palm Oil and 1000 MT Crude Palm, Olein. They have received 44 MT less which according to them is valued at Rs. 9,92,950.00 and hence, the suit for recovery of this loss was filed by them.

4. It is on the basis of the aforesaid allegations and averments, the original plaintiff has filed the above suits against the applicant and sought certain relief against the applicant. It is the case of the original plaintiff that on being informed that the vessel was likely to sail away without discharging the Cargo remaining on board and thus apprehending loss of cargo valued approximately at Rs. 9,92,950.00, they filed Admiralty Suit No. 3 of 2003 in this Court seeking arrest of the vessel discharge of Cargo remaining on board of vessel. The applicant, along with other Cargo receivers were joined as defendants and the original plaintiff obtained an order of arrest of the vessel on 15-3-2003 from this Court. This Court has further clarified in the order dated 15-3-2003 that in the event of defendant and/or those interested in depositing in this Court a sum of Rs. 9,92,950/- and costs of Rs. 25,000/- towards the satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim in the suit and/or furnishing security in the said sum of Rs. 9,92,950/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs. 9,92,950/- from the date of filing of the suit till payment/realization to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court as security towards the satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim in the suit, the said warrant of arrest shall not be executed against the defendant vessel M.T. Asia V.2.

5. The said order was modified on 26-3-2003 as after passing of the said order, the original plaintiff has received certain quantity of Crude Palm Oil and Palm Olein and in that view of the matter, shortage of 44 MTs has undergone a change and the shortage came to 20.274 MTs in case of Crude Palm Oil and 3.095 MTs in case of Palmolein and accordingly, the defendants and the persons interested in the defendant vessel M.T. ASIA V.2 has deposited in this Court the Demand Draft bearing No. 172977 dated 25-3-2003 drawn on Canara Bank and issued in favour of the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad for a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- and cost of Rs. 25,000/- aggregating to a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- towards the satisfaction of the