KARTAR SINGH Vs. SHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision has been filed against the Order of the Civil Judge dated 24.2.2003. On an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaint was rejected, inter alia, holding that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC precluded the Plaintiff from bringing any subsequent claim. I shall refrain from making any observations on the legal propriety of this Order for the reason that the Revision petition itself is not maintainable. 2. The complete answer is available in Atma Parkash & Ors. v. Roshan Lal & Ors., 1999 1 AD (DELHI) 815, which reads thus:- "In the present case the plaint was returned to the plaintiff/petitioner so as to be filed before a competent Court in accordance with its rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel for respondent NO.3 points out that a decree as defined under Section 2, Sub-clause (2) of Civil Procedure Code is deemed to include a rejection of a plaint. He further submits that only an appeal would lie only against the impugned order. Section 2, Sub-section (2) reads as under:

(2.) He further relies on two judgments of learned Single Judge of this Court viz. M.L. Aggarwal Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., 49 (1993) Delhi Law Times 735 and Tarun Chopra and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., 1992 (2) Delhi Lawyer 250. 3.

(3.) The Revision petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. The Petitioner, however, may initiate any other appropriate proceedings if available to him in accordance with law.