Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a revision by Mst. Phool Sundari against the order of the District Judge, Bikaner and arise in the following circumstances. The applicant filed a suit against seven defendants, the last of them being the State of Rajasthan. The applicant claimed Rs. 21,000/-as damages in this suit for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The District Judge framed issues on the 13th of July, 1954. On that date, he ordered that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against defendants Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7. He consequently rejected the plaint as against these defendants. The present revision is against this order rejecting the plaint against four out of seven defendants.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the opposite parties and their contention is that the order in question was appealable and as no appeal was filed, this Court should not come to the rescue of the applicant in revision. We have heard learned counsel on this preliminary point and have come to the conclusion that, however, we look at the order of the trial court, it is appealable. Under sec. 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedures includes an order rejecting a plaint and as the rejection of a plaint is a decree, it is naturally appealable under sec. 96 of the Code. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, urges that this is not an order rejecting a plaint and his argument is that an order rejecting a plaint contemplated by O. VII, R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is an order by which the plaint is completely rejected and nothing remains before the court. He has cited a number of cases where it has been held that plaint can only be rejected in toto under O. VII, R. 11 C.P.C. and cannot be rejected in part.

3. In Maqsud Ahmad vs. Mathra Datt &Co.(l) it was observed that there was no provision in the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint in part and that if a plaint is rejected in part, revision would lie. It is enough, however, to point out that in that case the only part of the plaint, that was rejected was the part relating to the claim for interest. The plaint remained pending against all the defendants otherwise. It was in those circumstances that it was said that the plaint could not be rejected in part.

4. Again in L. Collins vs. Charles Booth & Co. Ltd. (2), it was said that the rule in India does not justify the rejection of a plaint in part. That was however, an original suit before the Judicial Commissioners Court of Sind and the learned Judge held that there was a cause of action with respect to part of the relief and, therefore, the plaint could not be rejected as to the part about which there did not appear to be a cause of action. There was no question in that case either of there being no cause of action whatsoever against some of the defendants.

5. Another case to which reference may be made is Raghubans Puri vs. Jyotis Swarupa(3). In that case it was held that under sec. 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure a court cannot reject a plaint in part. The facts there also were that the court rejected the claim in the plaint for an alternative relief. The plaint was not rejected an against a particular defendant.

6. These cases, therefore, show that it is not open to a court to reject a plaint in part so far as the subject-matter of the plaint or the relief claimed therein is concerned. These cases, however, do not lay down that the whole of the plaint cannot be rejected against some of the defendants against whom the court thinks that there is no cause of action whatsoever.

7. In Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lahore vs. Lala Ishar Das (4), the plaint was rejected against one of the defendants and there was a first appeal to the High Court. It was urged that there could be no appeal to the High Court. The learned Judge remarked that the mere fact that four defendants were included in one suit does not necessarily mean that there could not be rejection of the plaint so far as one of the defendants was concerned. He, however, did

Click Here to Read the rest of this document