I T C Vs. KRISHNA MOKTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, the petitioner, I.T.C. Limited, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has challenged the order dated 1-5-1991 of Shri T. Dorjee, the learned District Judge, Sikkim, rejecting the petitioner's application in Civil Suit No. 1 of 1991, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for rejecting the plaint on the grounds that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by law.

(2.) Civil Suit No. 1 of 1991 was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 21-1-1991. Respondent No. 4 Druk Industrial Company Pvt. Ltd., is the first defendant and the petitioner company (hereinafter referred as ITC) is the second defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs have claimed the following substantive reliefs :-

(3.) On 19-2-1991, ITC moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging therein that the averments made in the body of the plaint and the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs do not disclose any cause of action and only an illusion of a cause of action has been created by making fake and untrue statements, and further that the suit is barred by law and is not maintainable. It is also stated that the Head Office of ITC is situated at 37, Chowringhee, Calcutta and it has no office establishment- or representatives and does net carry on business within the State of Sikkim and the goods manufactured by it at various factories and establishments are purchased by Druk Investment Company, defendant No. 1, on a principal to principal basis, and thereafter distributed in the State of Sikkim pursuant to certain orders of the Government of Sikkim.