JUDGMENT :

(M.S. Jawalkar, J.)

Heard.

2. The present Revision Application is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 07/11/2022 passed below Exhibit 15, the applicants are constrained to assail the same before this Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :

The respondent instituted a summary suit under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,50,398/-. The summary suit came to be registered a Summary Civil Suit No. 22/2022, and is presently pending on the file of the 14th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur. After the applicants filed an application before the learned Trial Court seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff is defective and filed with numerous incurable defects and it has also not mentioned the dates, sums and numbers in the pleadings in figures as well as in words as required by Order 6 Rule 2 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which came to be marked as Exhibit 15. The respondent filed his reply to applicants’ application that came to be marked as Exhibit 17. After advancing arguments orally, the applicants filed their brief written notes of arguments. By its order dated 07/11/2022, the learned Trial Court rejected applicants’ application seeking rejection of plaint. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07/11/2022 passed below Exhibit 15, the applicants are constrained to assail the same before this Court.

4. The applicants’ contention is that the learned Trial Court has apparently failed to exercise the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which has been held to be mandatory in a catena of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is further contended that the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for a special procedure in respect of a specific class of recovery claims. It is a departure from the regular procedure prescribed for trial of money claims. A litigant who wishes to avail of the special remedy and procedure prescribed under Order 37 of the Code is required to comply with all the special requirements therein strictly. Without compliance with all the special requirements prescribed under Order 37, the chain of cause of action cannot be said to be completed for filing of plaint and is to be tried as a plaint under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is therefore submitted that in the event of even a single default in the chain that constitutes and completes the cause of action for treating the plaint as one under Order 37, it would have to be held that the plaint fails to disclose a complete cause of action for it to be treated as a plaint under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court erred in observing that the defects and non-compliance of the provisions of Order 37, if any, are curable and a matter of trial. It is submitted that the defects are curable only till such time as the learned Trial Court takes up the application under Order 7 Rule 11 for consideration. The learned Trial Court cannot sit over a defective plaint in the hopes that the plaintiff may cure the defects at a later stage. The plaintiff has to remain diligent and act with alacrity.

5. Learned Counsel for applicants relied on following citations:

1) K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan and others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 238

2) Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/ Managing Trustee, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706

3) Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207

4) Union of India and others Vs. A.K. Pandey, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 552

5) Jivaraj Motilal Vs. Marthaka Plastic Industries and others, in C.R.P. No.4748/1982 dated 17/07/1985 of Madras High Court

6) Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others, r