Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. I, R. 10---Impleading of parties---Necessary and proper party---Scope---Plaintiff in a suit is dominus litis who may choose persons against whom he wishes to litigate and he cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief---Necessary party is a person who must be joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed at all by court---If a necessary party is not impleaded the suit itself is liable to be dismissed---Proper party is a party who though not a necessary party but is a person whose presence enables court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in suit, though he is not a person in favour of or against whom decree is to be made. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Suit for specific performance of agreement, declaration, injunction, rendition of accounts, recovery of money and damages--- Rejection of plaint---Principles---Partial rejection of plaint---Scope---Suit filed by plaintiffs was sought to be rejected on the plea that there was no binding contract between the parties and many defendants were located abroad for which Trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction---Defendants also contented that suit did not disclose any cause of action---Validity---Court had to presume facts stated in plaint as correct and for determination of any such application Court could not look into the defence---Right methodology and approach in case of mix question of law and facts, was to let the suit proceed to written statement and discovery and determine matter either on framing preliminary issues or regular trial---Provisions of O.VII, R. 11, C.P.C., did not justify rejection of any particular portion of plaint or in piecemeal---Concept of partial rejection was seemingly incongruous to provisions of O. VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Court was bound to reject plaint if it did not disclose any cause of action---Plea that there was no cause of action for suit was different from the plea that plaint did not disclose a cause of action---Astute drafting for creating…