As per case facts, the Plaintiff sold goods to Defendant No. 4, with payment covered by a Letter of Credit (LC) from Defendant No. 1, confirmed by Defendant No. 3. ... Defendant No. 2, acting as the banker for Defendant No. 4, was involved in the LC issuance process. The Plaintiff alleges conspiracy and collusion among defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4, leading to unpaid sale consideration after the goods were delivered. Defendant No. 2 filed an application for rejection of the plaint and deletion of its name, arguing it bore no liability under UCP rules, having merely forwarded the LC. The question arose whether the plaint, on a plain reading, disclosed a cause of action against Defendant No. 2, warranting summary rejection, given the complex facts and allegations of collusion. Finally, the High Court held that the plaint alleged prima facie involvement of Defendant No. 2, and segregating the cause of action without a full trial was not possible. The Court found it was not a fit case for summary rejection of the plaint against Defendant No. 2. The application was dismissed, and the suit will proceed to trial.