JUDGMENT

PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — In this civil revision, the petitioners seek to assail the order dated 10.01.2007 passed in B.P.No. 3 of 2005 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar, Ganjam rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 1 has filed a suit for preliminary decree against the petitioners and others in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar, Ganjam, which has been registered as B.P.No. 3 of 2005. The said suit was filed on 23.3.2005. The petitioners after notice entered appearance and filed their written statement together with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. to reject the plaint. But the learned Civil Judge dismissed the said application on 10.01.2007 with the finding that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of absence of cause of action. So far as the question of valuation and payment of court-fee is concerned, the trial Court held that the suit had been admitted after checking up the court-fee and that if at all the suit was undervalued, it would be decided during trial.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is illegal and erroneous inasmuch as since the plaint was admitted, the question relating to valuation should have been dealt with at that stage. But the trial Court has observed that the question relating to valuation can be dealt with only at the stage of final adjudication of the suit.

4. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 submits that the suit has been properly valued, proper court-fee amount has been paid thereon and so the order of the Civil Judge is legal. The trial Court has rightly observed that if the suit is undervalued, that can be dealt with at the time of trial.

5. Counsel for the parties relied upon the decisions reported in T.Arivandandam v. T.V.Satyapal, AIR 1977 SC 2421; Ranjeet Mal v. Poonam Chand, AIR 1983 Rajasthan 1; Sivananda Roy v. Janaki Ballav Pattnaik, AIR 1985 Orissa 197; Sri Ainthi Dalabehera v. Government of Orissa, 1992 (I) OLR 154; Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Klockner and Co., 1995 (II) OLR 16; and Nandakishore Nayak v. State of Orissa, 2003 (I) OLR 473.

6. Perused the impugned order, copy of the plaint, notes submitted by the parties and the decisions cited by them as well as the provisions of law. For better appreciation of the matter, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is quoted below :

“11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon 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, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law :

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.”

From a bare reading of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that if the relief claimed is undervalued, the plaint is to be rejected. Further, for non-disclosure of cause of action also, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

7. In Sivananda Roy (supra), it was held that if the plaint is found to be a super