- (1.) The suit has been recently filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property in Puri. The first relief claimed is for specific performance of the agreement by directing the defendant to execute the deed of conveyance relating to the property in terms of the agreement of February 23, 2010. The second relief claimed is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring or selling the suit property to any person other than the plaintiff "till disposal of the suit." There are the other usual reliefs for receiver and attachment.
(2.) GA No. 495 of 2011 is the plaintiff's application for interlocutory orders in aid of the ultimate reliefs claimed in the suit. GA No. 660 of 2011 is the defendants' application for dismissal and or rejection of the plaint relating thereto. Though the later application claims to have been made on behalf of all the defendants, the affidavit of competency filed by the first defendant shows that only the defendant nos. 2 to 4 have given her the authority to prosecute or defend any litigation concerning their rights and interests in respect of the assets inherited by them from their deceased father, who was the husband of the first defendant. There does not appear to be any authority on behalf of the fifth defendant that would allow the first defendant to represent the fifth defendant.
(3.) It must be recorded at the outset that upon the application for rejection of the plaint being received, the plaintiff was afforded time to consider whether a suitable application need be brought for correcting the apparent mistakes in the plaint. The plaintiff has, however, stood its ground to defend the plaint. The cause-title in the plaint claims the first and fifth defendants to be associated with a Harrington Street address within jurisdiction. The addresses of the second, third and fourth defendants are shown to be outside jurisdiction. The suit has been lodged without leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1857.;