Iqbal Ahmad vs Rehana Muzaffar And Another

Rajnesh Oswal, J

CM no. 8170/2021

For the reasons detailed in the application, same is allowed. Delay of 643 days in filing the Civil Revision is condoned. Civil Revision is taken on board.

CM disposed of.

The present Civil Revision is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.12.2019, by virtue of which the court of learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as "Trial court") has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner i.e. defendant no. 2- before the learned Trial court for rejection of the plaint. It is contended that the petitioner had laid a motion under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondents on the ground that the respondents had made contradictory pleadings and further that the suit was not properly valued.

Mr. Aatir Javed Kawoosa learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the learned Trial court has fallen into grave error of law while rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by virtue of the order impugned, as the Trial court has not considered the facts that the suit was not properly valued and also that the respondents had taken the contradictory pleas in their suit.

Heard and perused the record.

From the record, it is evident that the issue No. 3 was also framed on the same premises on the basis of which application was laid by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint. As per the mandate of Order 7 Rule 11, the Court is well within the jurisdiction to reject the plaint provided it does not disclose the cause of action. Needles to say that the cause of action is a "Bundles of facts" that entitles the plaintiff to approach the Court for grant of particular relief. Merely taking a contradictory pleas in a plaint would not mean that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings returned by the Trial court that the plaint is not required to be rejected on this ground.

The other ground raised by the petitioner is with regard to the improper valuation of the suit. As per the mandate of Order 7 Rule 11 (b), where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so then only the plaint is to be rejected. So far, the instant suit is concerned, the suit is pending before the court of Additional District, Judge, Srinagar, that has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Even, if ultimately, it is found that the suit is not properly valued, still the learned Trial court can ask the plaintiff to properly value the same and pay the stamp duty, as such, on this ground also this Court does not find any reason whatsoever, to show any indulgence.

Viewed thus, there is no merit in the present petition and same is dismissed.