GURDIAL SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal can be disposed of at the motion stage itself. The appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit in the trial Court seeking permanent injunction against the defendant. That suit was decreed. The defendant came in appeal. The District Judge allowed the appeal on the solitary ground that the plaint did not contain the statement under Order 7 Rule 1 (j) CPC (Punjab and Haryana High Court Amendment), which require that the plaint should contain the statement to the effect that there was no previous litigation between the parties, and if, there had been any such litigation, the result of it. The admitted position is that such a statement had not been incorporated in the plaint. The only question, therefore, remains whether the District Judge was justified in allowing the appeal on that solitary ground and thereby rejecting the plaint, and in effect, dismissing the suit.

(2.) I would say that the provisions, as given in Order 7 Rule 1 CPC, had not been properly appreciated by the District Judge. These provisions, undoubtedly, indicate that the plain should contain the particulars as prescribed under that rule. If such particulars are not stated, the next question then arises what shall be the effect of it. The plaint in certain circumstances can be returned or rejected as contemplated in Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC respectively. The occasion to return the plaint arises when it was required to be presented to the proper Court. The plaint can be rejected in the circumstances covered by Order 7 Rule 11. It contemplates in all four circumstances: