The suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses a cause of action and raises questions fit to be decided by the court.

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 12.4.2005 made in O.S.No.129 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Udhagamandalam.)

The plaintiff/first respondent herein filed a suit for declaring the sale deeds document Nos.238, 239 and 276 of 2000 executed by the first defendant/second respondent herein in favour of the second and third defendants/petitioners herein as null and void and unenforceable and would not bind on the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction against the first and second defendants from interfering and disturbing the peaceful possession of the first respondent in the suit schedule property.

2. The defendants 2 and 3/petitioner herein raised a contention that the suit has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid and suit has to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

3. According to the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3, the sale deeds have been executed by the second respondent/first defendant. That factum has been explicitly stated in the written statement. But in spite of that, without seeking for cancellation of the sale deeds, a camouflaged prayer has been sought for by the first respondent. The suit filed by the first respondent is not properly valued and it is under valued. If it is properly valued, the trial Court has no jurisdiction and on that ground, they wanted to non-suit the first respondent to lay the plaint in the trial Court.

4. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel on either side passed an order in the suit on 12.4.2005 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners by posting the suit for cross examination of P.W.1. The correctness of the said order is now put in issue before this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the contentions stated above and also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shamsher Singh vs. Rajinder Prashad and Others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 524.

6. I heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents also.

7. From the plaint, it could be seen that it is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent was the power of attorney of the first respondent/plaintiff. Even after revocation of the power of attorney, he appears to have executed the sale deed in favour of the second and third defendants/petitioners herein. That precisely made the first respondent/plaintiff to file the suit seeking for the prayer of declaration as stated above. In such circumstances, when the first respondent was not a party to the document, the relief sought for in the suit would not come under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and the contention of the petitioners herein cannot be accepted.

8. Rule 11 of the Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure provided that a plaint could be rejected.

(1) if the plaint did not disclose a cause of action;

(2) where the relief claimed was undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the Court, failed to do so;

(3) where the relief claimed was properly valued, but the plaint was written upon a paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court failed to do so;

(4) where the suit appeared from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(5) where the plaint was not filed in duplicate; and where the plaintiff failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.

The proviso appended to the above provision provided for extension of time for complying with the corrections pointed out by the Court, on reason being recorded.

9. None of the circumstances, which have been provided as reasons for rejecting the plaint in Order VII Rule 11 has been established in the present case. This is not as if the suit is filed