The consideration for rejection of the plaint should be based on the contents of the plaint alone and that extraneous matters cannot be considered to reject the plaint.

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 8.10.1999 passed by Sub-Judge IV, Bettiah, in Partition Suit no. 13 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by defendant no. 10petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint has been rejected.

2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed the suit for partition of the joint family property and injunction restraining the defendants from making alienation and also with the prayers that the compromise decree in earlier Title Suit no. 16 of 1985 was illegal, fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiffs and also for declaration of the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 on the basis of such compromise decree as void. The plaintiffs did not pay ad valorem court fee and paid court fee to the extent of fixed one in respect of prayer for partition and for valuation fixed by the plaintiffs for the purpose of other reliefs. Defendant no. 10 without filing written statement on earlier occasion filed a similar petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and main contention was that unless ad valorem court fee paid, the suit was not maintainable. It was also contended that the suit was not maintainable as in the earlier partition suit the father of the plaintiffs was defendant no. 6 and he himself had signed as Karta of the joint family in the compromise decree and, as such, plaintiffs claiming through him cannot attack the same partition as it should be construed as a res judicata. Limitation was also claimed in respect of the sale deed and also regarding the maintainability of the suit being barred under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said petition, after rejoinder being filed, was disposed of vide order dated 7.5.1996 and the operative part of the order was to the extent that if ad valorem court fee is not paid, the plaint shall be treated as rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said order was challenged by the plaintiffs in Civil Revision no. 804 of 1996. After hearing both the parties the said revision petition was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs shall have to pay ad valorem court fee, Then to avoid ad valorem court fees, the plaintiffs- opposite parties had withdrawn the reliefs claimed in Item no. C and D regarding declaration of the earlier compromise decree to be void and the sale deed executed by defendant no. 10 being invalid. Such prayer of amendment of the plaint was allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Against that order of allowance of amendment, the present petitioner preferred a revision petition before this Court. The main contention was that although the reliefs have been withdrawn by the plaintiffs but the averments regarding the earlier compromise decree and the sale deed remained as it was in the plaint itself and, as such, there was apprehension in the mind of defendant no. 10 that although the reliefs have been withdrawn on the basis of the averments in the plaint, there may be an occasion to grant equitable reliefs as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision petition filed by the petitioner with such apprehension was dismissed holding that there was no genuine apprehension in the mind of the petitioner as when the reliefs had once been withdrawn by the courts order, there was no scope for granting such reliefs under the purview of equitable relief under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Now again defendant no. 10 without filing written statement has filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint almost on the same averments as mentioned in the earlier petition except that of court fee matters and it was contended that there was already a decision to that effect regarding rejection of the plaint as contained in para-11 of the earlier order dated 7.5.1996 and hence the plaint should be rejec