ANHKU AND ORS. Vs. RIJ NATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Raghuvendra Shanker Srivastava, who has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

(2.) Undisputed facts, giving rise to the dispute, are as under.

(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that since No. notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served before filing of the suit, there was No. cause of action and the plaint was liable to be rejected and both the Courts below committed material illegality in rejecting the application. It has further been submitted that if the plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure since the suit could not have been filed without serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaint ought to have been rejected under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure The next contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners is that suit being vexatious and merit-less and plaint not disclosing any clear right to sue, the Court ought not to have been misled by clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action and ought to have rejected the plaint.