SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI,J. - (1.) :- 1. In view of order dated 24th August, 2010, passed in C.O. No.2542 of 2009, this revisional application was heard analogously with C.O. No.2542 of 2009. For the sake of convenience C.O. No.2542 of 2009 (Parul Projects Ltd. - Vs. - Mrinal Kanti Basu & Ors.) has been decided first and in deciding this case I intend to rely upon the findings arrived at in C.O. No.2542 of 2009 because identical issues of fact and law are involved in both the matters.
(2.) This revisional application is directed against an order being no.21 dated 20th August, 2007, passed by the learned 3rd Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore in Title Suit No.76 of 2006. In the revisional application the petitioners have stated that - opposite party nos. 1 to 4 as plaintiffs filed a suit being Title Suit No.76 of 2006 for a declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of the learned 3rd Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore. In the said suit it was, inter alia, prayed by the plaintiffs that they have right, title and interest over 20% super built-up area of the premises being no.115B/1, Netaji Subhas Bose Road, under Regent Park Police Station, Kolkata - 700040, this is mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint and further that they were entitled to have delivery of possession of separated and demarcated portion of the said 20% super built-up area in the suit premises. The plaintiffs also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.1 to 4 from obstructing the possession of 20% super built-up area in the suit premises mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint.
(3.) The defendants, after entering appearance in the suit, filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on the grounds that - 1) The plaintiffs have got no cause of action for filing the suit and there has been no cause of action in the plaint for filing the suit against the defendant nos.1 to 4. 2) The suit is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. 3) The suit is hopelessly barred by provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as also Section 14 (1) (c) and (3) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 4) There has been no privity of contract between the parties and 5) The plaint does not disclose the cause of action. ;