Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Udasing Jagmohansing Dikhat-Thakur, filed Special Civil Suit No. 14 of 2022 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed, seeking declaration, possession, and cancellation of a sale deed. The defendant-respondent No. 1 filed a written statement and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint. The trial court, after hearing both parties, rejected the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because an order rejecting a plaint is a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and is appealable under Section 96 CPC. The High Court examined Section 2(2) CPC, which defines 'decree' to include the rejection of a plaint. The court noted that the definition of decree expressly includes rejection of a plaint, and such an order conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to the matters in controversy. Therefore, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to file an appeal under Section 96 CPC, not a writ petition. The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal against the trial court's order within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The court also directed that if such an appeal is filed within the stipulated time, the appellate court shall consider the same without raising any objection as to limitation.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Order 7 Rule 11, Section 2(2), Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner filed a suit for declaration, possession and cancellation of sale deed. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for lack of cause of action. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 227. The respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as an appeal under Section 96 CPC was available. The High Court held that rejection of a plaint is a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and is appealable under Section 96 CPC. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed with liberty to file an appeal. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioner granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 96 CPC against the order of rejection of plaint within four weeks. If filed within that time, the appellate court shall consider it without raising any objection as to limitation.
Law Points
- Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a decree
- Appeal lies under Section 96 CPC
- Writ petition not maintainable against rejection of plaint
