JUDGMENT 1. G.A. No. 4155 of 2008 is the plaintiffs application for the appointment of a Receiver over approximately 75 MT of palm oil which is a part of the subject-matter of the suit. G.A. No. 284 of 2009 is the plaintiffs second application seeking payment of the amount deposited by the defendant in connection with the 75 MT of palm oil. G.A. No. 217 of 2009 is the defendant's application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent with alternate prayers for dismissal of the suit or rejection of the plaint. G.A. No. 453 of 2009 is the application of a third party for being impleaded or being permitted to intervene in the proceedings. 2. THE claim in the suit is that the plaintiff entered into a high seas sale for purchase of 1000 MT of palm oil from the applicant in G.A. No. 453 of 2009, which is said to be a sister concern of the plaintiff. THE plaint says that the plaintiff subsequently entered into another high seas sale with the defendant for sale of 500 MT of the palm oil. According to the plaint, the defendant did not make any payment for the goods but obtained copies of the documents and received delivery thereof by making payment of the customs and port charges. THE plaint speaks of the defendant having taken delivery of about 425 MT of palm oil and the balance about 75 MT being held at or about the port premises in Kandla. At paragraph 2 of the plaint, it has been stated that the plaintiff entered into the agreement for sale of 500 MT of palm oil in favour of the defendant from the plaintiffs registered office within jurisdiction. At paragraph 3, it has been pleaded that the documents in respect of the 1000 MT of palm oil were received by the plaintiff at its registered office within jurisdiction. Thereafter, paragraph 4 of the plaint reads as follows: "4. There has been no negotiable set of documents made over to the plaintiff. The property in the goods has not passed in favour of the plaintiff. However, on faith and trust, the plaintiff issued delivery order in respect of the entire lot of 500 MT of the said goods. A copy of the delivery order is annexed hereto and marked with the letter "C". The property in the goods has not passed in favour of the plaintiff. However, on faith and trust, the plaintiff issued delivery order in respect of the entire lot of 500 MT of the said goods. A copy of the delivery order is annexed hereto and marked with the letter "C". The delivery order was issued from the office of the plaintiff at 24A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 017, within the jurisdiction aforesaid." (Emphasis supplied) 3. THE plaintiff obtained an ex parte order in G.A. No. 4155 of 2008 on December 24, 2008 for the appointment of a Receiver for selling the 75 MT of palm oil through public auction after advertisements. THE sale was subject to confirmation by Court. THE order recorded that the direction was given since the goods were perishable in nature and had a short shelf-life. 4. WHEN the matter was next taken up on January 12, 2009, the defendant appeared and submitted that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had averred that it had no title to the goods. The order thereafter recorded the submission made on behalf of the defendant that the delivery order had been issued directly by the plaintiffs sister concern, the applicant in G.A. No. 453 of 2009, and that such sister concern subsequently fraudulently took delivery of 425 MT of palm oil by forging documents. The order further noted that a police complaint had been lodged by the defendant with the Lahori Gate Police Station, New Delhi on the ground of forgery and the matter was under investigation. However, since the defendant was ready and willing to pay the price of the 75 MT of palm oil that had been taken delivery of by the Receiver, the defendant was permitted to deposit such money with the Registrar, Original Side and obtain delivery of the goods. The defendant has since taken delivery of about 75 MT of palm oil. 5. THE defendant says that there was no question of the defendant making any payment in respect of the original 425 MT of palm oil since the defendant did not have the benefit of the goods. According to the defendant, the goods were stored at some place and the plaintiffs sister concern managed to obtain delivery thereof by falsifying documents and as such the defendant did not enjoy the goods at all. 6. According to the defendant, the goods were stored at some place and the plaintiffs sister concern managed to obtain delivery thereof by falsifying documents and as such the defendant did not enjoy the goods at all. 6. THE defendant says that from paragraph 4 of the plaint, it would be evident that neither had the documents of title relating to the goods ever been delivered to the plaintiff nor did the property in the goods pass in favour of the plaintiff. THE defendant says that in view of such averment in the plaint, the allegations contained elsewhere are of no relevance since, de hors the negotiable documents and title to the goods, it was apparent that the plaintiff did not have any cause of action and as to whether any agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant within jurisdiction was wholly immaterial. It is a matter of some importance that notwithstanding it being pointed out on behalf of the defendant on January 12, 2009 that the plaintiff had averred in the plaint that the property in the goods did not pass to it, no steps were taken by the plaintiff for amendment of paragraph 4 of the plaint. In response to the application for revocation of leave, the plaintiff has used an affidavit. At paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it has been stated as follows: "With reference to the statements contained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said application it is specifically denied that the plaintiff has admitted that the property of the goods has pot passed in favour of the plaintiff. In this regard it is specifically stated that the plaintiff is referring to paragraph 4 of the plaint where there has been a typographical error and inadvertently in place of 'defendant', it has gone down as 'plaintiff. The defendant taking advantage of the typographical error is alleging' that the plaintiff has admitted that the property in the goods had not passed in favour or the plaintiff and from the averments made in the plaint it would be evident that the plaintiff intended to incorporate that the property in the goods had not passed in favour of the defendant and not plaintiff. By mistake inadvertently the word 'plaintiff had gone down in place of defendant and the same would be apparent from a true construction of the paragraphs of the plaint, and the case made out by the plaintiff." 7. WITHOUT going into the manner in which paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition to the demurrer application has been worded, it evident that the plaintiff has referred to a solitary mistake and that such solitary mistake, on a reading of paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition, had obviously occurred in the second sentence at the fourth paragraph of the plaint. The plaintiff has overlooked the opening sentence of the fourth paragraph where the plaintiff admitted that it had received no documents of title relating to the goods. 8. IF it is the plaintiffs case that the second sentence in the fourth paragraph of the plaint had inadvertently referred to the defendant as the plaintiff, the first sentence of the paragraph would make the previous and subsequent averments in the plaint irrelevant since it is the plaintiffs positive case that no negotiable set of documents had been made over to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs affidavit-in-opposition to the revocation application was prepared in June, 2009. Till date, there does not appear to be any application made for amendment of the plaint despite the two sentences in the plaint altogether demolishing the plaintiffs case. Even the affidavit-in-opposition dealt with the second sentence at paragraph 4 without the plaintiff caring to revise the entire paragraph or the rest of the plaint. 9. ON the basis of the averments as they stand today, the suit cannot be continued and the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is liable to be revoked. In any event, in view of the statements contained in the opening two sentences of the fourth paragraph of the plaint, it does not appear that the plaintiff has any cause of action against the defendant. 10. THE averments in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the plaint could have been made the basis for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court if it had any nexus with the plaintiffs cause of action. Since the plaintiff has averred as it has at paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff does not appear to have any cause of action to lodge the claim. Since the plaintiff has averred as it has at paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff does not appear to have any cause of action to lodge the claim. Even if it is accepted that the property in the goods passed to the plaintiff and there is a mistaken reference in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of the plains, there is nothing on record to show that the first sentence in such paragraph is also mistaken. If the plaintiff did not possess any negotiable set of documents relating to the goods, there was neither any relevance in the plaintiff entering into any agreement with the defendant for sale of the goods nor any possibility of the plaintiff making over any meaningful delivery order entitling the defendant to obtain clearance of the goods. In fact, the averment in the plaint that the plaintiff had issued and made over the delivery order relating to 500 MT of palm oil to the defendant is belied by the copy of the delivery order appended to the plaint. THE delivery order is dated October 16, 2008 and is issued by Siddhi Vinayak Industries Pvt. Ltd. (the so-called sister concern of the plaintiff) in favour of the defendant's proprietorship concern. THE plaintiffs name does not figure in the delivery order though there is a transporter who is referred to therein that bears a resemblance to a part of the plaintiffs name. The defendant has asserted in its petition in GA No. 217 of 2009 that the plaintiff has no cause of action and the plaint discloses none. The petition is replete with the contention that, on the plaintiffs showing it received no negotiable set of documents relating to the goods and the property in the goods did not pass to the plaintiff. Against such challenge, the plaintiff has merely suggested that what it meant to say in paragraph 4 of the plaint was that the property in the goods did not pass to the defendant. 11. THE burden is on the plaintiff to assert and establish its claim. In assessing an application of the nature that the defendant has brought, the allegations in the plaint have to be accepted to be correct. It has thus to be accepted at this stage that there was indeed an agreement for sale of 500 MT of palm oil by the plaintiff to the defendant. In assessing an application of the nature that the defendant has brought, the allegations in the plaint have to be accepted to be correct. It has thus to be accepted at this stage that there was indeed an agreement for sale of 500 MT of palm oil by the plaintiff to the defendant. But if the plaintiff had admitted that no negotiable documents were made over to it or no valid title in the goods passed to it, both the agreement and the claim are stillborn. It is neither the plaintiffs case nor is it evident from the copy of the document annexed to the plaint that the delivery order was made out by a third party in the plaintiffs favour and endorsed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. 12. A plaint cannot be taken lightly. A cavalier statement that there was a mistake in the fundamental basis of the claim cannot be taken at face value; particularly when such statement appears in an affidavit in response to a challenge to the further continuation of the action and not by way of a sober petition expressing remorse for the alleged mistake and seeking rectification thereof. A plaint is a formal document filed in a Court of Law asserting a claim; it has to be prepared most seriously, for that is the foundation of interlocutory orders before the evidence is called. A flippant statement in an affidavit merely stating that there was a typographical error without caring to recognise or explain the damning previous sentence is no good to ward off the defendant's wholesome challenge to the suit and the prayer to immediately arrest the action. On the plaintiffs assertion in paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff does not have any cause of action against the defendant and the plaint discloses none. The plaint relating to CS No. 263 of 2008 is liable to and is rejected. 13. GA No. 217 of 2009 is allowed. In view of this order, GA No. 4155 of 2008, GA No. 284 of 2009 and GA No. 453 of 2009 stand disposed of without any order. 14. SINCE the Registrar, Original Side, holds a certain sum of money pursuant to directions contained in the order dated January 12, 2009, the Registrar will hold the same for a period of six months from date. 14. SINCE the Registrar, Original Side, holds a certain sum of money pursuant to directions contained in the order dated January 12, 2009, the Registrar will hold the same for a period of six months from date. In the event any person entitled to such payment is able to obtain an order and serve the same on the Registrar within such time, the Registrar will act on the basis of such order. If, however, the Registrar is not required to make over the money to any other person entitled to receive the same by any legal order within the time stipulated, it will be open to the defendant to seek and obtain refund of the money from the Registrar, Original Side. There will be no order as to costs. The plaintiff seeks a stay of operation of this order for a week which is declined. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Appeals allowed.