Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) DEFENDANT has moved this application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint or dismissal of the suit summarily as disclosing no cause of action. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff claims that it is a private limited company duly registered under the Companies Act with the Registrar of Companies and Sanjay Gupta is the Secretary of defendant who is duly authorised to sign, verify and institute the suit by virtue of a resolution dated 24. 6. 1989 passed by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on that date. It is claimed that Sanjeev Gupta is well conversant with the facts and can depose about them. It is alleged that defendant being the owner of the suit property agreed to sell, transfer and convey the same to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 25. 10. 1988 for a consideration of Rs. 43. 50 lakhs. On the execution of the agreement a sum of Rs. 9. 50 was paid to the defendant. After making elaborate allegations, the plaintiff has claimed a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell directing the defendant to execute sale deed with respect to the suit property and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff. Numerous other reliefs have also been claimed for which separate averments have been made. ( 3 ) THE suit was instituted on 4. 7. 1989. Defendant filed written statement. On 18. 4. 1990 the defendant was permitted to amend the written statement. The defendant by way of amendment sought the raising of an objection that the suit has not been properly instituted and the person filing, signing and verifying the plaint is not authorised to do so. In addition other amendments were also sought. After the plaintiff had filed replication to the amended written statement, an application (Cri. M. 304/90) was moved by the defendant under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the two directors of the plaintiff, namely, Pramod Gupta and Rajiv Gupta, including the alleged Secretary Sanjay Gupta have hatched a criminal conspiracy to foist a false claim and have sworn a false affidavit. Prayer is made to hold an enquiry in respect of commission of offence alleged to have committed by them. This application was filed on 15. 10. 1990. Prayer is made to hold an enquiry in respect of commission of offence alleged to have committed by them. This application was filed on 15. 10. 1990. Time was allowed to the plaintiff to file reply. On 1st February, 1991 when the case was taken up by the Deputy Registrar, final opportunity was granted to the plaintiffto file reply within three weeks. Defendant feeling aggrieved against this order preferred OA 4/91 seeking to challenge the order of the Deputy Registrar contending that final opportunity ought not to have been granted to the plaintiff to file reply to the said application. In the meanwhile, defendant filed IA 473/91 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. ( 4 ) THE grievance of me defendant in nutshell is that sufficient time having been granted to the plaintiff company, it has failed to file its reply to the application moved under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thus, the allegations made therein are presumed and are also deemed to have been taken as correct and, thus, an inference is to be drawn that there was a fake appointment of the alleged Secretary and the two resolutions dated 1. 10. 1988 and 24. 6. 1989 are also fake. Suit cannot be proceeded or be allowed to be prosecuted by the plaintiff company since Sanjeev Gupta is neither the Secretary nor has any right to institute the suit. The applications are vehemently opposed by the plaintiff. ( 5 ) WHEN the case was taken up for hearing arguments on these applications, the defendant s attorney stated that he has not to make any oral submissions and whatever he wanted to say has been stated by him in the written statement placed on the record. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that on perusal of the record, the applications may be disposed of. ( 6 ) I have gone through the entire record. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that on perusal of the record, the applications may be disposed of. ( 6 ) I have gone through the entire record. ( 7 ) THE defendant wants either the plaint to be rejected or the suit to be dismissed alleging that Sanjeev Gupta who claims himself to be the Secretary in fact was neither appointed validly as the Secretary by the plaintiff, nor was authorised to sign, verify the pleadings or to institute the suit on behalf of the company and, thus, there is no proper plaint before the court and that the plaint should be ordered to be rejected disclosing no cause of action. Such a contention, I am afraid, cannot be accepted. Plaint can be ordered to be rejected in the eventualities as are contemplated under Rule 7 of Order 11 of the Code. What defendant wants to say is that since Sanjeev Gupta is not duly authorised Secretary and is not in a position to depose on the facts of the case, he is not a proper person to sign, verify and institute the suit and, thus, plaint does not disclose any cause of action. To enable a court to reject a plaint on the ground that it discloses no cause of action court is required to look at the plaint and nothing else. Document which forms basis of the suit and are filed along with the plaint also deserve to be noticed. In asking the court to decide the question whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not, the defendant must be taken to admit, for the sake of argument that the allegations of the plaintiff in the plaint are true, in manner and form. A distinction must always be drawn between a case where plaint itself does not disclose a cause of action and another in which after considering the entire material on record the court comes to a conclusion that there is no cause of action. In the later case, the plaint cannot be rejected. It is not the defendant s case that material averments which are required to be made for a suit for specific performance are lacking in the instant plaint. His case is that authority in favour of Sanjeev Gupta is fake, bogus and fabricated one. In the later case, the plaint cannot be rejected. It is not the defendant s case that material averments which are required to be made for a suit for specific performance are lacking in the instant plaint. His case is that authority in favour of Sanjeev Gupta is fake, bogus and fabricated one. Such a contention cannot be accepted at this stage for which parties will have to be taken to trial. In case, after the evidence is led and it is found that there is no proper authority, decision will have to betaken in accordance with law at that stage. At this stage it has to be inferred that there is a proper authority, in favour of Sanjeev Gupta for institution of the suit. Suit can be instituted on behalf of a company by a person, who has been duly authorised by virtue of a resolution passed by the Board of Directors. It is alleged in the plaint that the suit has been instituted by Sanjeev Gupta on the basis of a resolution passed by the Board of Directors. The question whether there is or is not a valid resolution or that Sanjeev Gupta was or was not appointed as the Secretary of the Company or that Sanjeev Gupta had or had not been validly authorised will all be questions to be considered and decided after the parties lead their evidence and it is not a case at this stage for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Otherwise also I have gone through the plaint. All material allegations constituting a cause of action for a suit for specific performance of an agreement have been made and the plaint is not liable to be rejected on any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application which has no force is dismissed. ( 8 ) IN view of the order passed on 8. 4. 1991 when the court permitted the replies to be taken on record, this appeal has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. ( 9 ) THIS is an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking vacation of the order of injunction passed in IA 4632/89 on 6th April, 1989 and 10th August, 1989 and as confirmed on 20. 9. 1989. ( 9 ) THIS is an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking vacation of the order of injunction passed in IA 4632/89 on 6th April, 1989 and 10th August, 1989 and as confirmed on 20. 9. 1989. The grounds for vacation of the order of injunction are the same as are made in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the two resolutions on the basis of which Sanjeev Gupta has been authorised to institute the suit are fake and fictitious and there is no proper authorisation to file the suit and there is no proper suit before the court. It is not disputed that the order passed in IA 4632/89 was confirmed after affording due opportunity to the defendant. There is no subse. quent change in the circumstances either alleged in the application or brought to the notice of the court except the fact that the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved to which no reply was filed earlier. It is not in dispute that reply has since been filed and has been ordered to be placed on record. There is no ground justifying the vacation of order of injunction which restrains the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating and encumbering the suit property or from changing the nature and character thereof by raising construction and from parting with possession of the property till further orders. The application, thus, having no force is dismissed. ( 10 ) THIS is an application seeking dismissal of Cri. M. No. 304/90, OA4/91, IA 473/91 and IA 2418/91. ( 11 ) IN view of the fact that orders have passed today, this application has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. ( 12 ) THIS application cannot be decided at this stage and will have to be taken up for decision along with final disposal of the main suit. ( 13 ) ORDERED accordingly. ( 14 ) IN this application prayer has been made by the defendant for examining Sanjeev Gupta under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for elucidation of matter in controversy. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties. I do not it consider necessary at this stage to examine the parties under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code, more particularly Sanjeev Gupta. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties. I do not it consider necessary at this stage to examine the parties under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code, more particularly Sanjeev Gupta. The case has been pending decision for the last almost six years and there has been no progress so far. Even issues have not been framed. In case at the time of framing of issues it is felt necessary and desirable that some of the issues are required to be treated and decided as preliminary issues, appropriate orders can be passed for taking up those issues as preliminary issues. ( 15 ) WITH these observations, this application is disposed of.