plaint, the purchase orders were placed on the plaintiff for the supply of goods by the first defendant through its consultant and the said practice was in vogue ever since the business relationship commenced between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The invoices are also raised by the plaintiff only on the first defendant. The first and third defendants have also issued cheques towards part payment for the goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff. The details of the dishonored cheques issued by the defendants have also been disclosed in the plaint. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action against the defendants for filing the suit though the defendants may contend that the actual beneficiary of the goods is a third party, namely, M/s.Plas Pharma and that they would have to make the payment. It is a triable issue, which cannot be adjudicated in a rejection of plaint application. Infact, as seen from the plaint averment in paragraph 14, a categorical assertion has been made by the plaintiff that the defendants had purchased the goods from the plaintiff and the first defendant had in turn sold the goods to one M/s.Plas Pharma. While that be so, at this stage, without going for trial, the first defendant/applicant cannot seek for rejection of plaint
