VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision has been filed against the Order of the Civil Judge dated 24. 2. 2003. On an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaint was rejected, inter alia, holding that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC precluded the Plaintiff from bringing any subsequent claim. I shall refrain from making any observations on the legal propriety of this Order for the reason that the Revision petition itself is not maintainable. 2. The complete answer is available in Atma Parkash and Ors. v. Roshan Lal and Ors. , 1999 1 AD (DELHI) 815, which reads thus:- "in the present case the plaint was returned to the plaintiff/petitioner so as to be filed before a competent Court in accordance with its rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel for respondent NO. 3 points out that a decree as defined under Section 2, Sub-clause (2) of Civil Procedure Code is deemed to include a rejection of a plaint. He further submits that only an appeal would lie only against the impugned order. Section 2, Sub-section (2) reads as under:

" (2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the termination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include - (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation: A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final".

( 2 ) HE further relies on two judgments of learned Single Judge of this Court viz. M. L. Aggarwal Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. , 49 (1993) Delhi Law Times 735 and Tarun Chopra and Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors. , 1992 (2) Delhi Lawyer 250. 3.

"in my view there is merit in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. It is clear that rejection of a plaint as per the definition of a decree in Section 2 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure is defined to include deemed rejection of a plaint and accordingly only an appeal wold be maintainable against such an order. The present revision petition is accordingly not maintainable. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. It will be open to the petitioner to take such proceedings in accordance with law as may be available to him. There will be no order as to costs".

( 3 ) THE Revision petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. The Petitioner, however, may initiate any other appropriate proceedings if available to him in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document