(1.) Two contentions in this review application are forcefully urged by Shri K. S. Tomar appearing for the applicant, and those I proposed to dispose of because counsel has rightly submitted that he has not been able to lay his hands on any decision on the controversy mooted. On the other hand, it is also true that in the order passed on 30-4-1991 (impugned before me in Misc. Appeal No. 138 of 1991 disposed of by me on 1-7-1991) the Court below had relied on my decision rendered on 8-7-1986 is Second Appeal No. 147 of 1976, Shri Gopal Shastri v. Purushottam Das. It is necessary, therefore, to clarify the scope of that decision as well.
(2.) First contention of the counsel can be easily and summarily disposed of as that is of a preliminary nature. He has contended that the appeal before me was not maintainable because the trial Court's order should be regarded as order passed under R. 11 of O. 7, C. P. C. There is nothing indicated in the order as to the provision invoked to exercise its jurisdiction by the Court concerned, but there is reference in the order of the application of the defendant (herein review-petitioner) being made under O. 7, R. 10, C.P.C. Whatever that may be, the effect of the order was plain and simple : the plaint was returned for filing in the "proper Court". I wonder, how that order can be taken out of the purview of Rule 10, which empowers the Court to return the plaint to be presented in the Court in which the suit ought to have been instituted. In the instant case, the trial Court took the view that clubbing in reliefs of different natures was impermissible and, therefore, the suit had to be instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, who had jurisdiction to grant relief of eviction in terms of the provisions of S. 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, for short, 'the Act'. Review cannot, therefore, be granted on the first ground urged that my order dated 1-7-1991 was without jurisdiction as the appeal itself was not maintainable. That contention has no leg at all to stand even for a moment's scrutiny.
(3.) However, counsel's second contention deserves attention and that I proceed to deal with. Let it be recalled that in my order dated 1-7-1991 a simple direction was made because the trial Court had overlooked Cl. (k) of S. 12(1) of the Act. I took the view that the plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to amend his plaint and to include therein ground of eviction embraced by Cl. (k) because it was permissible to lay out more than one foundation as the cause of action of his suit for eviction. Beyond that I said nothing though I had, nevertheless, also made the observation that if that was not done and if the plaintiff-appellant was denied that opportunity he will have an occasion to rue the day he failed to frame his suit properly. Because, provisions of O. 2, R. 2, C.P.C. would come in his way. It may be mentioned that through typographical error in my order dated 1-7-1991 instead of O. 2 the words 'Order 3' has been typed and that mistake is brought to my notice today. Provisions of Civil Procedure Code concerning the frame of a suit are exhaustively detailed in O. II and in my order dated 1-7-1991 I had taken care of the legitimate apprehension of plaintiff-appellant's missing the bus for not including in his plaint relief founded on Cl. (k) of S. 12(1) of the Act keeping in view sub-rule (3) of R. 2 of O. II.