The duty of the Court to reject the plaint if it is hit by any of the infirmities provided under O. 7, R. 11 of the Code, even without intervention of the defendant.

( 1 ) DURING the course of arguments on 1-8-2007 Shri Vikram G. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the applicant had prayed that this Court should invoke the suo motu revisional jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and set aside the order dated 7-12-2001 as also quash the proceedings as being patently without jurisdiction. Before invoking such jurisdiction, learned counsel were called upon to address on the order dated 7-12-2001 rejecting the application under O. 7, R. 11 of the Code filed by the applicant herein for rejection of the plaint.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel were heard.

( 3 ) ADMITTED facts in brief are as follows : one Laljee Joshi filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority, bemetara (hereinafter referred to as 'the rca') under the 'provisions of the then madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control act, 1961 for eviction of the respondent/tenant Bhaiyyaram on ground of bona fide requirement, which was registered as Revenue case No. 161c/121, 82-83. Vide order dated 30-8-1986, the RCA passed an order of exaction of the respondent/tenant.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the rca, the tenant preferred Civil Appeal No. 7/86, which was dismissed vide order dated 10-10-1998. The respondent/tenant preferred a civil revision in the High Court of madhya Pradesh, which was also dismissed in default. Particulars, i. e. , civil revision number, date of dismissal etc. have not been furnished by the applicants.

( 5 ) THE respondent/tenant instituted Civil suit No. 44-A/2001 before the 1st Civil judge Class-II, Bemetara, District Durg praying for the following reliefs : (Vernacular matter is omitted Ed.)

( 6 ) IN the said suit, the defendant/landlord Laljee Joshi filed an application under o. 7, R. 11 of the Code on the ground that civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit and no cause of action for filing a civil suit arose in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent herein. Vide order dated 7-12-2001, the learned 1st Civil Judge Class-II, bemetara passed the following order on the said application : (Vernacular matter is omitted Ed.)

( 7 ) THE respondent herein also filed an application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the code for restraining the defendant/landlord laljee Joshi from evicting the applicant/tenant from the suit accommodation. This application was rejected vide order dated 20-12-2001 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class-II, bemetara in Civil Suit No. 44-A/2001.

( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the tenant/plaintiff preferred Miscellaneous Civil appeal No. 4/2002. It was contended that after the institution of Civil Suit No. 44-A/ 2001, he was dispossessed in pursuance of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 18-8-2001. The learned IInd Additional district Judge, Bemetara, District drug allowed the appeal on the ground that the respondent/tenant was in possession of the suit accommodation on the date of suit and, therefore, ordered restoration of status quo ante. Aggrieved by this order dated 3-8-2002 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 4/2002, the applicant Laljee Joshi has filed this civil revision.

( 9 ) DURING the pendency of the revision laljee Joshi died on 18-9-2002. His legal representatives, who are the present applicants, were brought on record.

( 10 ) SHRI Vikram G. Tamaskar learned counsel for the applicant did not press this revision against the order dated 3-8-2002 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 4/ 2002, but prayed that since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred under Section 45 of the Chhattisgarh accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a complete failure of justice had occasioned due to rejection of his application under O. 7, R. 11 of the Code by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, bemetara vide order dated 7-12-2001. Learned counsel for the applicant prayed that invoking the suo motu revisional jurisdiction, the order dated 7-12-200

Click Here to Read the rest of this document