Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Ex-Soldier Security Force Th S.P.S. ... vs Origo Commodities India Pvt. Ltd on 5 November, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143619
CR-1676-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(137)
CR-1676-2024
Date of Decision: - 05.11.2024
M/s Ex-Soldier Security Force through its Proprietor & Anr.
....Petitioners
Versus
Origo Commodities India Pvt. Limited through its Managing
Director
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Mukesh Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated
24.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Patiala.
2. The Madras High Court vide judgment dated 12.07.2002
passed in CRP(PD) No.3576 of 2001 titled as K.S. Geetha Vs.
Stanleybuck, had observed that once the plaint is rejected on the
application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and there is nothing
pending in the Court then the same is a formal expression of an
adjudication, which so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively
determines the rights of the parties and after taking into consideration
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143619
Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which defines the term "decree"
and states that the said decree shall be deemed to include rejection of the
plaint, held that in such a situation, an appeal would lie under Section 96
of the Code and had further observed that in case the plaint has been
rejected, only remedy for the plaintiff, who is aggrieved, is to file an
appeal and not to file a revision petition. Relevant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"xxx xxx
8. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants raised a preliminary objection as to the
maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel
contended, as against the order of rejection of a plaint, appeal only
lies and that being so, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the Courts have held that a Civil revision petition is also maintainable
and that there is no substance in the preliminary objection as put
forward by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the event of this
Court coming to the conclusion that the preliminary objection raised
by the respondents is sustainable then it will be a futile exercise to
refer to and consider the other points raised. In this view of the matter,
this Court desires to consider that issue first, before considering the
other issues that arises for consideration.
9. Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure deals with
rejection of plaint. Once the plaint is rejected, then obviously nothing
is pending before the Court. That order is formal expression of an
adjudication, which so far as regards the Court expressing it,
conclusively determines the rights of the parties. In fact, Section 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure which defines the term decree specifically
states that the decree shall be deemed to include rejection of the
plaint. Section 96 of the Code deals with appeal from original decrees.
The claim of the respondents is that the order rejecting plaint being
the decree by the trial Court, the only remedy, if plaintiff is aggrieved,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143619
is by way of filing an appeal and not by filing revision petition.
10. The learned counsel would place strong reliance on the
ruling of the Full Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1952 Madras
86 (Satyanarayanacharyulu v. Ramalingam) (FB). In that case, the
petitioners filed a suit in the Subordinate Court for declaration and for
other reliefs and paid a fixed Court fee of Rs.100/- under Sec.17-A of
Schedule II, Court Fees Act valuing the suit for the purposes of
jurisdiction at Rs.3,600/-. The question arose was whether the Court
fee paid has been correct and after considering the objection the
Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the suit has been
grossly under valued and directed the petitioner/plaintiff to pay an
additional Court fee of Rs.400/-. The order directing payment of
additional Court fee was made on 14.3.1947 and a period ten days
time was given for payment of the deficit court fee. The suit was
adjourned to 24.3.1947 and by that time, as the deficit court fee was
not paid as per the order dated 14.3.1947, the plaint was rejected. A
revision was filed against the order dated 24.3.1947. The Full Bench
approving the view taken in an earlier ruling reported in 1942 (1)
MLJ 569 (Ratnavelu Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai), ruled that if the
order directing payment of additional Court fee was not complied with
and it was followed by an order dismissing the suit, a revision would
not be maintainable and the remedy is only by way of an appeal
against the decree. Or in other words, the Court ruled that once a
plaint is rejected, the remedy for the plaintiff is only to file an appeal
and not a revision petition.
A learned single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider a
similar question and after considering the ruling of the Full Bench
referred supra as well as other rulings viz., AIR 1924 Oudh 413
(Harihar Bakhsh Singh v. Jagannath Singh); AIR 1956 Hyderabad
133 (Radhakishen v. Wali Mohammed); and AIR 1957 Pepsu 14
(Badri Nath v. State of Pepsu), clearly ruled that both from the
section and those decisions it is clear that only appeal will lie against
rejection of plaint and it is not limited to such cases wherein the plaint
was rejected for the reasons stated under Order 7, Rule 11 of Code of
Civil Procedure.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143619
In a recent ruling of this Court reported in 1998(3) CTC 165 :
(1999 AIHC 470) (Nesammal v. Edward) a learned single Judge
referred extensively the various rulings including AIR 1976 Madras
289 (R.Shanmughavelu Pillai v. R.Karuppannan Ambalam) and
concurred with it.
11. Thus, the legal position from the above rulings is that as
against the order rejecting the plaint, only an appeal lies and not a
revision.
xxx xxx"
3. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
permission of this Court to withdraw the present revision petition with
liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal in accordance with law.
4. In view of the above, the present revision petition is
dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.
( VIKAS BAHL )
November 05, 2024 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
