1. Granted. Heard the learned counsel.
2. A perusal of the plaint shows that suit for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction in respect of the property which even according to the plaintiff belongs to the defendant No,1 is based on a sale agreement which has been executed by defendant No,3 Rashid Tauqir who is son of defendant No,1 in favour of the plaintiff and there is nothing on record to show that he was a duly authorized agent of his mother to enter into such agreement in respect of the said property.
3. The receipt produced also bears the signature of defendant No,3 only. The defendant No,1 is not even an attesting witness of this document/sale agreement. Under these circumstances, no cause of action can be said to have accrued to the plaintiff against the owner of the property so that she could be directed to perform the terms of agreement in letter and spirit, as such the suit is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of suo motu powers under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.0 along with the listed applications. However, in view of the oral request made by Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque for refund of the court-fee since it is a very initial stage of the suit, hence permission for refund of the court-fee is granted.
4. Officer is directed to process the case for refund. Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque further requests that he may be granted permission to file a fresh suit. Rejection of plaint is no bar to a fresh suit provided the same is found to be in order and in accordance with the law.