Summary
Rejection of a plaint is a decree challengeable by a first appeal under Section 96 CPC. The Court therefore upheld dismissal of the plaintiff’s writ petition while preserving the appropriate appellate remedy. It also upheld the defendants’ revision: after rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), the trial court could not use that rule’s proviso to grant time to amend the reliefs. The proviso concerns correction of valuation or deficient court-fee paper under clauses (b) and (c).
Issues
- Whether a writ petition was the proper remedy against rejection of the plaint.
- Whether the proviso to Order VII Rule 11 permitted time to amend reliefs after rejection under clause (d).
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(2) and 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Rejection of a plaint is expressly included in the definition of decree and attracts the first-appeal remedy. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14)
- Order VII Rule 11(d) and proviso; Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The time-extension proviso concerns valuation or stamp-paper deficiencies, not rejection as barred by law; rejection does not by its own force preclude a fresh plaint on the same cause. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Held
- The plaintiff’s challenge to rejection of the plaint belonged in a first appeal because that order operated as a decree. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the writ petition on this ground, rather than the High Court’s reasoning that it was belated and an afterthought, and preserved recourse to the remedy prescribed by the CPC. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 14)
- The proviso to Order VII Rule 11 regulates extension of time for correction of valuation or supply of requisite stamp paper, subject to exceptional cause and grave injustice. It did not justify granting liberty to amend reliefs after allowing rejection under clause (d). The High Court therefore correctly allowed the defendants’ revision against that further direction. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Order VII Rule 13 preserves the possibility of a fresh plaint on the same cause of action, since rejection alone does not bar it. The present disposition did not determine the substantive challenge to rejection in the first appeal left available to the plaintiff. (¶¶ 12, 14, 15)
Result
Appeals disposed of; High Court’s allowance of the defendants’ revision and dismissal of the plaintiff’s writ petition affirmed, with liberty to pursue the CPC remedy against rejection.