LAWS(RAJ)-2013-1-219

VIJAY KUMAR Vs. NAGAR NIGAM JAIPUR

Decided On January 16, 2013
VIJAY KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Nagar Nigam Jaipur and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -plaintiff under Sec. 115 of C.P.C., challenging the order dt. 02.11.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 332/2012. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma appearing for the petitioner that the trial Court relying upon the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., has returned the plaint for presentation before the competent Court, whereas under the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11, the plaint could be rejected and not returned. Learned counsel Mr. Manish Sharma, for the respondents No. 2 to 4 and learned counsel Ms. Radha Shekhawat, for respondent No. 1 have submitted that though Court has referred to the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11, virtually the order is passed by the Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C. According to them, there being no illegality in the impugned order, the same may not be interfered.

(2.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the trial Court hence mixed up the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11, in as much as the Order VII Rule 10 pertains to the returning of the plaint to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted, whereas Rule 11 pertains to the rejection of plaint on any of the grounds mentioned therein. It further appears that the application of the respondents -defendants was filed under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint and not under Order VII Rule 10 for returning of the plaint for presentation before the competent Court. The trial Court having confused itself by returning the plaint, pressing into service provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11, the impugned order deserves to be set -aside and the trial Court is required to be directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law.