JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. J.J. Mulgaonkar for the appellants and Mr. Cleofato Almeida Coutinho for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5th May, 2012, by which the learned Trial Judge has rejected the plaint by resorting to the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Since, in terms of the CPC such an order rejecting the plaint is deemed to be a decree, this appeal has been instituted.

3. Mr. J.J. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that rejection is based on two grounds, both of which are not legally sustainable. He submits that in the first place, the Court held that some amendments were carried out to the plaint even though the application seeking leave to amend was pending and no leave had been granted. Secondly, he submits that there was no under-valuation and, in any case, the maximum Court Fee of Rs. 15,000/- had already been paid. On the first aspect, he submits that there was an error on the part of the Advocate who was appearing in the matter and the explanation may be considered.

4. Mr. Coutinho, the learned Counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order based on the reasoning