(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.08.2013 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in I.A. Nos. 22522/2012 and 2963/2013. The said applications were filed in CS(OS) No. 1042/2005 which has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff. I.A. No. 22522/2012 was an application seeking restoration of the said suit. I.A. No. 2963/2013 was an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.
(2.) The said suit as originally filed by the appellant/plaintiff sought several reliefs including the relief of mandatory injunction injuncting the defendant from selling the property in question namely House No. 2 situated at Arjun Nagar, village Humayunpur, New Delhi, measuring 7683 Sq.Yards. The prayers in the plaint were as under:-
(3.) The defendant No.1 filed an application being I.A. No. 7017/2005 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it failed to disclose a cause of action. During the pendency of the said application the plaintiff had filed two applications being I.A. Nos. 3040/2006 and 1703/2007 both under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. By an order dated 26.09.2012 the learned single Judge allowed the defendant's application (I.A. No. 7017/2005 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC) and thereby passed an order rejecting the plaint on the ground that it failed to disclose a cause of action. The court observed that on the date of the suit, no mandatory injunction could have been sought directing the defendants to sell the suit property to the plaintiff as the plaintiff had admitted in the plaint itself that the defendant No.1 had already sold the suit property. It is on that basis that the defendant Nos.2 to 4, who were the purchasers, were made co-defendants in the said suit. However, while rejecting the plaint, the learned single Judge also observed that apart from the relief of injunction, no other relief was claimed and it is for that reason that the plaint was rejected for not disclosing any cause of action.