( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Senior civil Judge, Bodhan, rejecting the plaint in an unnumbered suit holding that the suit is not maintainable.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed seeking a decree for recovery of Rs. 4,14,900. 00. The Revision petitioner/ Plaintiff claims to be a prized bidder of the defendant Chit Fund Company. It is pleaded that the plaintiff paid 22 monthly subscriptions and participated in the auction on 6-9-2002 in which he agreed to forego Rs. 25,100. 00 out of the chit amount of Rs. 5,00,000. 00. Thus, the defendant Chit fund Company is liable to pay a sum of rs. 4,74,900/- to the plaintiff towards chit amount and that the defendant has also obtained his signatures on all the relevant documents and promised to pay the said amount within one month. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff agreed to deduct a sum of rs. 60,000/- towards the remaining future instalments and requested the defendant Chit fund Company to pay the remaining sum of rs. 4,14,900/-, but the defendant failed to do so. Hence the suit.

( 3 ) THE Plaint was returned on an office objection PS to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to file the chit agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant chit Fund Company. The explanation offered by the plaintiff that he surrendered all the documents to the defendant Chit fund Company and that except the receipt dated 21-3-2002 which was filed as Document No. 4 there is no other document in his possession, was not accepted by the Court below and it was held that in the absence of the agreement said to have been executed by the parties, the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly, the plaint was rejected by order dated 14-2-2003 which is under challenge in this Revision petition.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of plaint is permissible only on the grounds enumerated under Order 7, Rule 11 of c. P. C. He contends that the order under revision rejecting the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to file the documents which are material to decide the issue in question is erroneous and not in conformity with Rule 11 since none of the circumstances specified thereunder is attracted.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the chit agreement is the basis for the entire suit transaction and in the absence of the said document, it cannot be said that there is any cause of action for the suit claim. Thus, according to the learned counsel, clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 c. P. C. is attracted and the Court below has rightly rejected the plaint.

( 7 ) FOR proper appreciation of the rival submissions, it is necessary to note order 7, Rule 11 of C. P. C. which runs as under :"order 7 Rule II- Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within