SONMA DEVI Vs. URMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The Office has raised points of maintainability in this matter. Its report is that the impugned order has been passed by the Civil Judge 1st (Sr. Division), Vaishali at Hajipur, under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and the plaint itself has been rejected. The rejection of the plaint is a decree and is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Code, thus, Civil Revision would not be maintainable rather appeal. would lie against such order/decree.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contests the issue of maintainability and submits that the Court below has erred in deciding this matter by rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 1 l(d) of the Code on the wrong presumption that the property was mistakenly purchased in the name of the Defendant No. 1 which, according to him, amounts to plea of benami, which is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988. Whereas the case in fact is that the sister of the plaintiff has got her name fraudulently entered in the sale deed and, thus, there is no question of its being hit by any provision of Benami Transaction Act. Hence his contention is that this is one of the exceptional cases where this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction, as envisaged under Section 115 of the Code.