IN THE COURT OF THE VACANTION CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.

_____ of 2013 In ORIGINAL SUIT NO. BETWEEN: Sri Abraham T.J. and others AND: Bharatiya Janata Party and others Defendants Plaintiffs OF 2013

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 8 R/W SECTIONS 91 AND 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 1. The plaintiffs respectfully seek that the facts, averments, contentions, pleadings, argument and every other narration contained in the accompanying plaint may kindly be treated as forming an integral part of this interlocutory application. 2. The Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the cause of action as pleaded in the accompanying plaint is largely of a public nature and though the plaintiffs could have individually shown that they have sustained damages and could have thereby, elected to seek damages individually against the BJP, they have chosen, without abandoning their individual rights and claims, to collectively plead the cause of action as stated in the plaint as members of a class. 3. The class at issue are all voters who were eligible to cast votes in the elections held to the 13th Vidhana Sabha of Karnataka on 10-May-2008, 16-May-2008 and 22-May-2008 and who did cast votes in favour of candidates set up by the BJP political party by principally relying upon the BJPs election promises as stated in its promise sheet and with an expectation that the casting of a vote in favour of the

candidate of BJP would bind the BJP into a binding legal relationship with such voter so as to create in that voter, a contractual expectation to the fulfilment by the BJP during its allotted term of such of those election promises as were specific, definite and quantifiable. 4. Upon the breach by the BJP of the aforesaid election promises, that voter would be entitled to maintain in law, an action for breach of contract and thereby claim compensatory damages. In the alternative, the members of that class could claim that the promises as made by the BJP in its promise sheet, in the light of its blatant breach and disregard of such promises during its allotted term, were fraudulent misrepresentations that did not subsume into a contract and therefore, maintain a common law tortuous action for compensatory damages and upon further showing of an evil intent and evidence of an outrageous character in the making of such fraudulent misrepresentations, an action for exemplary or punitive damages against the BJP. 5. The plaintiffs respectfully state that the issue of a political party knowingly making false election promises is not a matter of ordinary concern to voters and the same goes to the very root of our democratic tradition. The sanctity of election promises is a matter of profound concern to citizens of India and though the plaintiffs could have ordinarily sued in their own right and capacity and claimed damages for the breach as established by them, they have deemed it necessary to agitate as members of a class and they are of the honest belief that hundreds or may be, even thousands of voters in the State of Karnataka who similarly consider themselves to be aggrieved by reason of such breach by the BJP would want to join in the cause of action as pleaded by these plaintiffs as members of such class.

6.

Further, the plaintiffs respectfully submit that the breach by the BJP of most of its election promises is such as to invite diverse members of the public from claiming damages due to breach of promises that were concerned with their specific occupation in life. For instance, a city dweller might not have relied upon an election promise concerning provision of certain facilities or concessions to the rural folk whereas a rural resident might not have been concerned about any election promise made to a specific section of commerce or industry. In such a situation, it would be in the interest of judicial economy and consolidation that all such actions arising from the breach by the BJP of several and diverse election promises be tried in one forum only so as to prevent multiplicity of trials, discovery or harassment.

7.

Further, the plaintiffs also expect that the defendants would be ordinarily entitled to insist on such a public suit and consolidation in cases where the defendants are proceeded against for breach of promises made to a class or to the world at large. PRAYER Wherefore, in view of the facts and special reasons narrated above, this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to: a. grant leave to the original plaintiffs, in terms of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with section 91 thereof, to prosecute the suit as filed as members of a class comprising of all voters who were eligible to cast their votes in the elections held on 10-May2008, 16-May-2008 and 22-may-2008 to the 13th Vidhana Sabha of Karnataka and who did cast their votes in favour of candidates set up by the BJP political party by principally relying upon the BJPs election promises as stated in its promise sheet and with an

expectation that the casting of a vote in favour of the candidate of BJP would bind the BJP into a binding legal relationship with such voter so as to create in him, a contractual expectation to the fulfilment by the BJP during its allotted term of such of those election promises as were specific, definite and quantifiable or with an expectation that future discovery of blatant and reckless disregard of such promises by the BJP would qualify such election promises as the making of a fraudulent misrepresentation by the BJP; b. issue other Order or direction as may be expedient for the enforcement of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PLAINTIFFS SHALL FOR EVER BE DUTY BOUND TO PRAY.

Bangalore Date: 02-May-2013 Advocate for Plaintiffs