Ajay Kumar vs Chairman and Others

Binod Kumar Roy, J.—These Civil Revision applications have been filed on 15.12.1988 by the Plaintiffs against the order dated 7.12.1988 rejecting their plaints under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Code'').

The Stamp Reporter submitted his report dated 14.12.1988 to the effect that rejection of a plaint amounts to a decree and the remedy of the Petitioners was to file a regular appeal and thus these Civil Revision applications do not appear to be maintainable before this Court. The maintainability of these Civil Revision applications came up before a Bench on 20�h December, 1988 and the Bench hearing that matter directed that the maintainability matter be considered at the time of admission of these Civil Revision applications.

I heard Mr. Yogendra Mishra is detail who tried firstly to justify that these Civil Revision applications are maintainable.

However, I am of the view that the impugned order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code amounts to a decree and no Civil Revision application lies before this Court. Such is the ratio decidendi of this Court in its decision reported in Nand Kumar Sinha Vs. Rai Bahadur Pashupati Ghosh and Others, and Rameshwar Thakur and Others Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Others, and even of Supreme Court reported in Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad and Others, . Accordingly, I accept the stamp report and hold that these Civil Revision applications are not maintainable.

Mr. Mishra now states that, these Revision application be returned to him for their presentation as appeals before the proper authority. Mr. Mishra further states that some observations be made so that the Petitioners could get a latitude of condonation of delay by the appellate Court when they present these Revision applications as appeals after making necessary corrections in them along with petitions under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The scope of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act have been explained times without number and it is not necessary for me to make any observation.

Accordingly, I allow the prayer of Mr. Mishra to return these Civil Revision applications to him. The office is directed to return the Civil Revision applications after retaining its true photostat copies for the purpose of the record of this Court.