The judgment established the importance of correctly interpreting the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, particularly in distinguishing between claims for specific performance and damages under the Specific Relief Act and the Contract Act.

Per Bobde. J.-This first appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. The plaint has been rejected by the trial Court under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff initially sued the defendants for specific performance and possession of land as per agreement dated 9.11.1984. The suit was decreed in March, 1988. In the first appeal decided on 16th July, 1992, the judgment and decree was quashed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for disposal of the suit. This was because before the appellate Court, i.e. this Court, it was claimed by the defendants that the land is notified as a forest land. An amendment of that effect was allowed by this Court. In the first appeal, this Court also allowed the plaintiff to amend her pleadings for moulding his reliefs. The parties were also allowed to lead fresh evidence.

4. A Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order of this Court was dismissed. After the matter was remanded before the trial Court, the plaintiff sought an amendment praying for the relief of damages. It is important to note that this was not objected to by the defendants. This prayer was made by the plaintiff because it was not possible for him to pursue his prayer for specific performance in view of the defendants' stand that the land in question has been notified as a reserved forest.

5. Apparently, before the trial Court, the defendants moved the instant application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. Rule 11 of Order VII, reads as under ;

"11. 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 under-valued, 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;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9."

6. According to the defendants, since the suit land is declared to be a reserved forest, no suit for specific performance can be decreed and, therefore, the suit is barred. They, therefore, prayed that the Court be pleased to reject the plaint since it has no jurisdiction to decree the suit. The trial Court has granted the application mainly on the basis of the fact that it is pleaded in the written statement and appears to have been impliedly accepted by the plaintiff that suit land is a forest land. This, to our mind, raises an infirmity in the order of the trial Court since the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC is allowed on the basis of the averments in the written statement and not on the basis of the averments in the plaint which alone must be taken into account while dealing with such an application, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557. The trial Court has further rejected the plaint on the basis that it has been held in the case of State of U.P. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 194 that the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is a complete code in itself and contains an elaborate procedure to be followed by the Government before and while notifying any area as the reserved forest area. Once a notification under Section 20 of the said Act declaring an area as a reserved forest area is published, then all the rights in the said land claimed by any person come to an end and area no longer available to him. The learned trial Court has further relied on a dec