AWADH NARAYAN SHRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner has called in question the defensibility of the order dated 15-2-99 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Sagar whereby he has refused to reject the plaint in exercise of power conferred on him under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C. P. C. on the basis of an application moved by the sole defendant/petitioner.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details the facts as have been unfolded are that the defendant/petitioner is a subscriber of Telephone No. 2884 which is installed at his residence Itwari Ward, Sagar. The Department of Telecommunication sent three consolidated bills amounting to Rs. 45,678/ -. The petitioner disputed with regard to the quantum of the bills. The Department instead of taking any action on the dispute raised by the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 20-B/1996 before the competent Court for realisation of the aforesaid amount. After the suit was filed the defendant entered appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C. P. C. stating that the suit being not maintainable the plaint should be rejected. The said prayer having been negatived, the present Civil Revision has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Masood Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. S. Patel, learned standing counsel for Union of India. Submission of Mr. Ali is that suit of this nature is not maintainable and Department should have taken recourse to Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Per contra, the submission of Mr. Patel is that it was open to the Telecommunication Department to file the suit for realisation of the amount.