The judgment established the principles governing the maintainability of a suit, the distinction between 'rejection of a plaint' and 'dismissal of a suit', and the court's power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. Challenge in the present appeal is laid to the judgment dated 30.11.1999 passed in a suit instituted by the appellant (plaintiff in the court below) against the respondents for declaration and mandatory injunction. The aforesaid suit of the appellant was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the same had been filed by concealing material facts. Before adverting to the pleas raised on behalf of both the parties, it would be appropriate to state in brief the facts of the case.

2. The appellant married respondent No.1 on 9.2.1992 in New Delhi and both the parties stayed in Delhi till 12.8.1992, whereafter they left for U.S.A. to pursue higher studies. It is an admitted position that on 29.6.1995, a decree of dissolution of marriage of the appellant and the respondent No.1 was granted by the Circuit Court of State of Oregon, United States of America. The appellant made an averment to the said effect in the plaint and stated that she did not join the proceedings and an ex parte decree was obtained by the respondent No.1.

3. As per the claim of the appellant as narrated in the plaint, prior to the decree of dissolution of marriage obtained by the respondent No.1 in June, 1995, the issue of settlement of “stridhan property” of the appellant was discussed between her and the respondent No.1 and also between the parents of the respondent No.1 and the father of the appellant. However, no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. On 26.6.1997, the appellant sent a legal notice to the respondents demanding return of her stridhan property, which was refuted by the respondents. As a result, on 2.2.1999, the appellant instituted a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in the trial court against her erstwhile husband, respondent No.1, and his parents, respondents No.2 & 3.

4. Summons to the respondents were issued in the suit on 2.2.1999, returnable on 23.4.1999. On 23.4.1999, a statement was made on behalf of the respondents that the appellant and the respondent No.1 had got their marriage dissolved in U.S.A. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, the learned ADJ adjourned the matter to 13.9.1999 so as to see, whether the appellant, who was also residing in USA, while seeking divorce in the court in USA, had settled the issue of stridhan, dowry articles and maintenance, etc. and directed for the personal appearance of the appellant to record her statement under the provisions of Order 10 CPC. On 13.9.1999, the Trial Court noted as below :

“Case is today fixed for personal appearance of the petitioner. Last hearing was fixed on 23rd April, 99, a date of almost 5 months was given for appearance of the petitioner because petitioner was stated to be in U.S.A. It is also admitted fact that parties i.e. petitioner and erstwhile husband after married had migrated to U.S.A. and got their marriage dissolved in U.S.A. This petition has been filed by the father of Ms. Vandana Gyandhar claiming Istridhan etc. The laws of U.S.A. on rights of women are more stringent than in India and petitioner must have made claim for her property etc. in U.S.A. A copy of the judgment of divorce in U.S.A. be filed in the court by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner’s father had earlier taken some treatment in U.S.A. Now he has gone for check up to U.S.A. so the petitioner is not able to come to India for appearance in this case because her father has gone to U.S.A. for check up. Last opportunity is given to the petitioner for her personal appearance for recording her statement under Order 10 CPC, failing which it will be deemed that petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this petition because this petition has been filed by her only to harass the respondent. To come up for her personal appearance on 18-11-99 and for filing of the copy of the judgment.”

5. On 18.11.1999, the matter was renotified for 30.11.1999. On 30.11.1999, though the appellant was n