JUDGMENT

P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 29 of 1996 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Keonjhar has preferred this Civil Revision on rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short, ‘the Code’).

2. Though it is of less relevancy but the facts and cir¬cumstances involved in this case are noted in brief.

Plaintiff filed the suit for partition, inter alia, claiming for half share of the joint family property and intended that the sale transactions made by his father and Karta of the family in favour of Defendants 14 of 32 be declared null and void and inoperative as against his half interest. A fixed Court-fee was paid. Title Suit was taken up for hearing and after recording evidence and hearing argument when the suit was posted for Judgment learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division entertained a doubt regarding correctness of valuation made and the Court-fee paid on the plaint. In that context, learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division) provided an opportunity of hearing to the parties and on 3.4.2001 directed the plaintiff to correct the valuation and to pay the deficit Court-fee in accordance with the provi¬sions under Sec. 7 (IV)(c) of the Court-fees Act. In that respect, time was granted till 9.4.2001 to do the needful. On 9.4.2001 plaintiff sought for time to challenge the said order in a Civil Revision. That application was rejected and because of non-pay¬ment of deficit Court fee the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Code.

3. In the revision application petitioner has prayed to set aside the order passed on 3.4.2001 i.e. the direction issued by the trial Court to pay further court-fee. Simultaneously, petitioner has also prayed to set aside the consequential order passed on 9.4.2001 i.e. the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.

4. In course of hearing of the revision for its disposal at the stage of admission both the parties addressed the Court on the maintainability of the Civil Revision as well as on the merit.

5. Referring to Section 115 of the Code of amended by Act 46 of 1999, learned counsel appearing for different sets of opposite parties argued that the Civil Revision is not maintain¬able as against either of the aforesaid two orders passed on 3.4.2001 and 9.4.2001 inasmuch as if that order would have been passed in favour of the revision petitioner, then that could not have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. They also argued that when a decree followed on rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, therefore, the only remedy which is available to the plaintiff-petitioner is to prefer an appeal and not a Civil Revision. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner argued that in view of the ratio propounded by this Court in the case of Baisnab Padhan v. Parma Padhan and another, AIR 1964 Orissa 156; Padmalaya Panda v. Masinath Mohanty, AIR 1990 Orissa 102; and M/s. Durga Pharma Distributors, Hyderabad and another v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 242 not only a Civil Revision is maintainable as against rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code but also such a Civil Revision should be duly considered for interfering with the order relating to payment of Court fee and restoration of the suit.

6. Before dealing with the aforesaid contention of the parties it is proper to put on record the decisions relied on and the position of law as it stands now after amendment of Section 115 of the Code by Act 46 of 1999. It may further be noted that case of Bahadur Pradhani v. Gopal Patel, AIR 1964 Orissa 134 is another decision of this Court in the context of restoration of suit dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.

7. In the case of Bahadur Pradhani (supra) the fact involved was that plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for non-payment of deficit Court-fee. Application filed under Section 151 of the Code of re