ATMA PARKASH Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case the plaint was returned to the plaintiff /petitioher 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 relates on two judgments of learned Single Judge of this Court viz. M.L. Aggarwal v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., 49 (1993) Delhi Law Times 735 and Tarun Chopra and Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 1992 (2) Delhi Lawyer 250.

(3.) . In my view there is merit in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. It is clear that rejection of a plaint as per the definition of a decree in Section 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure is defined to inciude deemed rejection of a plaint and accordingly only an appeal would be maintainable against such an order. The present revision petition is accordingly not maintainable. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. It will be open to the petitioner to take such proceedings in accordance with law as may be available to him. There will be no order as to costs.