Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the applicants (defendants) challenging an order dated 21 August 2024 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, rejecting their application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The respondent No.1/plaintiff raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision, relying on the judgment of this Court in Jasraj Lalaji Oswal v. Raziya Mehboob Patel, contending that the applicants have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing a Revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The applicants sought to distinguish Jasraj Lalaji Oswal by arguing that allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) would not affect the substantive rights of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff could still seek recall of the compromise decree. The Court, after considering the law enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court in Bhartiben Shah v. Smt. Gracy Thomas and the Single Judge decision in Jasraj Lalaji Oswal, held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC directly affects the very existence of the suit and the foundation of the party's case, and therefore affects substantive rights. Such an order is not a mere procedural order and is revisable under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act. Consequently, the Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC was dismissed as not maintainable, leaving the applicants to avail the remedy of revision under the MRC Act.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Revision - Alternate Remedy - Section 115 CPC, Section 34(4) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The Court held that a revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable when an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of revision under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act is available. The order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC affects substantive rights of parties and is therefore revisable under the Rent Act. (Paras 1-6)
B) Rent Control - Revisable Orders - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Section 34(4) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Following the Full Bench decision in Bhartiben Shah v. Gracy Thomas, the Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC directly affects the very existence of the suit and the substantive rights of parties, making it revisable under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act. Such an order is not a mere procedural order. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable when the applicants have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing a Revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed as not maintainable. The applicants are at liberty to avail the remedy of revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Law Points
- Maintainability of civil revision under Section 115 CPC when alternate remedy exists under Section 34(4) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC affects substantive rights and is revisable under Rent Act
- Principle of alternate and equally efficacious remedy bars revision under CPC
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (09) 2724
Civil Revision Application No. 493 of 2024
Mr. Prashant G. Karande a/w Mr. Sudam S. Patil i/b Praful S. Pawar for the Applicants, Mr. Hasan Sayed a/w Mr. R. A. Shaikh i/b Ms. Swati Marg for the Respondent No.1
Vishwanath Sakharam Churi And Ors.
Vijay Sakharam Churi And Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application challenging order rejecting application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Remedy Sought
The applicants sought to set aside the order dated 21 August 2024 of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, rejecting their application for rejection of the plaint.
Filing Reason
The applicants filed the revision under Section 115 CPC against the order rejecting their application for rejection of plaint.
Previous Decisions
The Small Causes Court, Mumbai, passed the order dated 21 August 2024 rejecting the applicants' application for rejection of plaint.
Issues
Whether the Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC is maintainable when an alternate remedy under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is available.
Whether an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC affects substantive rights and is revisable under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent No.1/plaintiff raised preliminary objection that the revision is not maintainable as applicants have alternate remedy of revision under Section 34(4) MRC Act, relying on Jasraj Lalaji Oswal.
Applicants argued that allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) would not affect substantive rights of plaintiff, as plaintiff could still seek recall of compromise decree, relying on Vishankumari Udaysingh Varma.
Ratio Decidendi
An order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC directly affects the very existence of the suit and the substantive rights of parties, and is therefore not a mere procedural order. Such an order is revisable under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Consequently, a Civil Revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable when an alternate and equally efficacious remedy under the Rent Act is available.
Judgment Excerpts
A revision application under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is not maintainable in respect of a procedural order passed under the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit arising out of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, if such order does not affect the rights of parties under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act or any other substantive law.
For an order to be revisable under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the order must affect the very existence of the suit or the foundation of the party's case in their pleadings and not merely a procedural order, not affecting the substantive rights of parties.
Procedural History
The applicants filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court rejected that application by order dated 21 August 2024. Aggrieved, the applicants filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC before the Bombay High Court. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The High Court dismissed the revision as not maintainable.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order VII Rule 11(d)
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 34(4)
