JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 04.02.2019, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in CO No. 306/2016 whereby the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed.

2. Succinctly stated/the facts relevant for the present purpose are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Prithvi Singh filed a suit for injunction, inter-alia, praying that the defendants No. 1 and 2 namely Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and Public Health & Engineering Department be restrained from disconnecting his electricity and water connection, while also seeking a permanent injunction qua defendant No. 3 to the effect that he be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession and causing damage to his property.

3. The petitioner filed an application dated 03.03.2017, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that the plaint be rejected. It was inter-alia contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is based on false averments and frivolous ground and the same is vexatious; the plaintiff has not sought quashment of the notice issued by defendants No. 1 and 2; plaintiff's conduct is suspicious; the plaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties; the plaint does not disclose cause of action; and that the suit was not maintainable as requisite notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been issued to the defendants No. 1 and 2 who are public authorities, prior to filing suit.

4. The learned Court below rejected petitioner's above application vide impugned order dated 04.02.2019, inter-alia, observing that the defendant No. 3 has failed to show or prove that how the plaintiff's plaint is barred by law, so also as to how the cause of action did not accrue to him..

5. Mr. Ram Kishore Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner oppugning calling the order dated 04.02.2019 contended that the suit in question is barred by law and thus, liable to be rejected under Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Emphasising on the word 'any law' used in Clause (d), he submitted that word 'any' is of wide amplitude and the same brings in its fold even the judgment of the High Court or the Supreme Court.

6. Elaborating this argument, he submitted that the suit in question was barred by law in light of the judgment of this Court rendered in case of Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji, Chhota Bhandar vs. Shri Kahmaiyalal & Ors. 2008 (2) RLW 1390 and in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., AIR 1977 SC 2421, wherein it has been held that if the suit is vexatious or frivolous, the plaint can be rejected.

7. Apart from the above, he argued that the suit was barred as the plaintiff had an efficacious remedy of appearing before defendants No. 1 & 2 in pursuance of the notice and put forth his case. According to him, instead of filing reply to the notice, the plaintiff has rushed to the Court, seeking relief which could otherwise be availed from the concerned Department. He further argued that without seeking quashment of the notice issued by the defendants No. 1 and 2, the plaintiff has sought injunction sans any declaration, for which the suit is not maintainable.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, including the plaint and the subject application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, placed for perusal of the Court.

9. Having considered the submissions advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Court below has committed no error of law in rejecting petitioner's application dated 03.03.2017.

10. This Court accepts the argument of learned counsel that the expression 'any law' is wide enough to include the law declared by High Court or the Supreme Court, but the same cannot