The court emphasized that the rejection of a plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should be based on valid grounds, and the delay in filing a review petition should be condoned if there are sufficient reasons.

State of Kerala filed O.S. No.161/82 before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara for recovery of an amount Rs. 18,686.78 with future interest and cost as damages for short delivery. Plaintiff was described as Superintending Engineer, Pamba Irrigation Project Circle, Chengannur for and on behalf of the State of Kerala. The defendant was described as Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras. Suit was filed on 8-12-1982. On the same date summons was ordered to the defendant. It would appear from the order sheet that subsequently on 22-6-1983 the Court ordered the suit to be posted for hearing on the question, of maintainability and jurisdiction. The learned Government Pleader was heard on behalf of the plaintiff. By order dated 30-6-1983 the Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. According to the learned Subordinate Judge who passed that order, the rejection was made on two grounds. One was that the description of the plaintiff was irregular. The plaintiff should have been described as Kerala State, represented by the Superintending Engineer, Project Circle, Chengannur. The second ground was that since the defendant was Union of India and the plaintiff was the State of Kerala, under Art.131(a) of the Constitution of India only the Supreme Court of India had jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. The plaintiff filed a petition for reviewing that order. In that petition it was submitted that the lower court had jurisdiction to try the suit. It was also pointed out that plaintiff was properly described and that the description of the defendant as the Union of India, represented by the General Manager of Southern Railway was proper.

3. There was delay in filing the review petition. So the review petition was accompanied by an affidavit and petition explaining the reasons for condoning the delay. The petitions were filed on 9-4-1984. The lower court by the order challenged in this C.R.P., dismissed the review petition. The State is challenging that order in this C.R.P.

4. The order rejecting the plaint on the ground that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit for damages between a State Government and the Central Government was illegal and unsustainable. Art.131(a) of the Constitution applies only in cases where legal rights in the context of the Constitution and federalism are involved. The controversy in this suit arise from a contract between a carrier and a consignee and as such that is not a legal right contemplated under Art.131 (a) of the Constitution. (See State of Bihar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1446 para 11 and State of Karnataka v. South Central Railway AIR 1977 Karnataka 168).

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India fairly submitted that the order rejecting the plaint could not be supported. However, learned counsel contended that there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the review petition. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, I had directed that affidavits of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioner in the lower court and of the officer-in-charge of this suit further explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the review petition were to be filed in this C.R.P.

6. Accordingly the Government Pleader appearing in the lower court and the Personal Assistant to the Superintending Engineer filed affidavits. The Legal Assistant attached to the law office of the Southern Railway Head Office at Madras filed a counter-affidavit controverting the averments in the affidavits. From the affidavits on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner, it is seen that the order of the court was forwarded to the Law Officer at Thriuvananthapuram, who examined the case and gave his opinion, and after getting his opinion the review petition was filed. It is clear that the delay was caused purely due to administrative reasons and there was no negligence on the part of any of the officers and so there was sufficient reason