The trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without waiting for the Collector's decision on the impounded agreement, as it should have considered the document's status before dismissal.

Order :

1. This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Beawer in civil suit No. 83/2017 (106/2013) whereby the trial Court rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on account of non-disclosure of cause of action.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13.04.2012, declaration and permanent as well as mandatory injunction in which the trial Court sent the so-called agreement for impounding to the Collector (Stamps) but the Collector (Stamps) not determined the stamp duty and penalty thereon.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the Collector (Stamps) impounded the said document vide order dated 19.11.2024 but the trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on account of non-disclosure of cause of action.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because the suit can not be rejected by invoking the provisions of order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff was ready to get impounded the so-called agreement but the Collector (Stamps) had passed the order regarding determination of stamp duty and penalty thereon on 19.11.2024. So, the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the matter be remanded to the trial Court for deciding the suit filed by the plaintiff afresh.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff because plaintiff had not taken any step for impounding the so-called agreement and he had not paid the requisite stamp duty. So, the trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

8. It is an admitted position that the trial Court had sent the so- called agreement to sell for impounding to the Collector (Stamps). Collector (Stamps) impounded the said document vide order dated 29.11.2024. Learned trial Court wrongly rejected the plaint on account of non-disclosure of cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In my considered opinion, the present suit could not be dismissed by invoking the provisions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. If the plaintiff failed to get impounded the said document then trial Court had only option to decide the suit filed by the plaintiff on merits without taking into consideration the so-called agreement but in the present case, so-called agreement was impounded by the Collector (Stamps) vide order dated 19.11.2024. Learned trial Court had to wait for the order to be passed by the Collector (Stamps) for impounding the document. So, the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.

9. Appeal filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside. Matter is remitted to the trial Court to decide the suit filed by the plaintiff afresh within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this orde after giving two opportunities to the plaintiff as well as defendants for adducing their evidence.

10. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 18.02.2025.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.