12. It is seen that the plaint lacks material particulars in as much as the word “fraud” is pleaded in the paragraph pertaining to cause of action but without giving any material particulars of any facts whatsoever to explain the fraud. Provisions of Order VI Rule 4 of CPC mandate such particulars, inter alia, as to who committed the fraud, when was it committed, on whom was it committed, nature and material facts of the fraud, etc. The entire Suit Plaint is devoid of this material aspect of the alleged fraud. In paragraph No.15, Plaintiff has used the word “fraud” or “mistake” in the same sentence for pleading the cause of action in sentence no. 3 which reads thus, “...further more, the suit is based upon the fraud of the defendants or the mistaken sale deeds” ( emphasis supplied ). It is seen that two specific causes of action have been pleaded in the alternative together which have a completely different nomenclature without any material particulars of the fraud or mistake committed by any of the Defendants being Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.15 to the Suit. If “fraud” is the cause of action then material particulars as alluded to hereinabove to defraud the Plaintiff need to be pleaded along with mens rea. But if the cause of action is due to “mistaken sale deeds” then there is no intention to cheat, but even then particulars of the mistake by the party who committed the mistake and on whom it was committed is not pleaded at any place in the plaint. It is averred that the registered sale deed executed by Plaintiff’s grandfather Robert is dated 20.03.1969. From the record, it
