The Bombay High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stating that the proper remedy lies before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Applicants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, which was denied by the Small Causes Court. The Court emphasized that procedural orders that do not affect substantive rights are not revisable under Section 115 CPC.

1) Challenge to Order Under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC

• Fact: Applicants challenged the Small Causes Court’s order, rejecting their application for the rejection of the plaint.
• Provisions Involved: Order VII Rule 11(d), Section 115 of CPC.

2) Preliminary Objection on Maintainability

• Fact: Respondent’s counsel raised a preliminary objection, arguing that a Revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, was the proper remedy.
• Provisions Involved: Section 34(4) of the MRC Act; Reference to Jasraj Lalaji Oswal v. Raziya Mehboob Patel (2020).

3) Applicant’s Argument for Distinguishing Judgment

• Fact: Applicants’ counsel sought to distinguish the present case from Jasraj Lalaji Oswal by citing Vishankumari Udaysingh Varma v. Vijaysingh Rajasingh Varma (2016), claiming no substantive rights would be affected by the rejection of the plaint.
• Provisions Involved: Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

4) Full Bench Law from Bhartiben Shah Case

• Fact: The Court referred to the Full Bench decision in Bhartiben Shah v. Smt. Gracy Thomas (2013), explaining the revisability of procedural orders under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act, when substantive rights are affected.
• Provisions Involved: Section 34(4) of MRC Act, Orders under CPC.

5) Revisability of Orders Under Rent Act

• Fact: The Court elaborated on revisable and non-revisable orders under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act, highlighting that only orders affecting substantive rights are revisable.
• Key Cases Discussed: Aspi R. Setha v. Sunermal M. Bafna, Bhartiben Shah.

6) Judgment in Jasraj Lalaji Oswal Applied

• Fact: The Court reiterated the law from Jasraj Lalaji Oswal that rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 affects substantive rights, requiring a revision under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act.
• Key Issue: Proper remedy under Section 34(4) of MRC Act.

7) Plaintiff’s Remedy and Defendants’ Revision

• Fact: The Court emphasized that rejection of the plaint would result in a decree, which the Plaintiff could appeal, while Defendants must seek revision before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court.

8) Revision Dismissed, Alternate Remedy Available

• Fact: The Court dismissed the revision application, directing Applicants to file a revision under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
  • Section 115 (Civil Revision)
  • Order VII Rule 11(d) (Rejection of Plaint)
• Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999:
  • Section 34(4) (Revision)

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court ruled that a revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable when there is an alternate remedy under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Procedural orders that do not affect substantive rights must be challenged in the appropriate forum under the MRC Act, and not directly before the High Court.

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure
• Rejection of Plaint
• Maharashtra Rent Control Act
• Revision Application
• Substantive vs. Procedural Rights
• Revision under Maharashtra Rent Control Act
• Order VII Rule 11(d) Rejection of Plaint