Mr. R.P. Nagrath, J.: - Petitioner-defendants have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 05.04.2013 passed by the learned trial Court.

2. The facts briefly are that the respondent filed a suit for damages of Rs.8 lacs on account of injuries caused by the petitioners in an incident dated 24.02.2010. The respondent also recorded FIR No. 43 dated 27.02.2010 for offences under Sections 452, 325, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Challan was also presented before the Magistrate on completion of investigation and charges against the petitioners have been framed on 14.06.2010 by the trial Court. The respondent, however, valued the suit for the tentative amount of Rs.3 lacs and paid the amount of court fee thereon.

3. On an application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the trial Court directed the respondent-plaintiff to pay the court fee on the amount of Rs.8 lacs. That order dated 08.09.2011 passed by the trial Court was challenged in CR No. 6095 of 2011 before this Court but the revision was dismissed on 17.10.2011. When the matter was fixed before the trial Court on 20.10.2011, it was observed that the respondent having failed to make good the deficiency in court fee, the plaint was rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 (b) CPC.

4. Thereafter, an application was filed by the respondent for restoration of the suit and for permission to pay the court fee. Learned trial Court observed in the impugned order dated 07.05.2013 that the respondent was ready to furnish the court fee and there being no bar to restore the suit the application was allowed and the respondent was directed to furnish the court fee by 07.05.2013.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.

6. In Kashmiri Devi vs. Aziz-u-Din, 1978 PLR 178, a judgment of this Court, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession by pre-emption of land in question. The trial Court had directed the plaintiff to deposit the pre-emption money of Rs.3400/- before 01.08.1977. Since direction was not complied with, the plaint was rejected. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 CPC for restoration of the suit on the ground that the amount in fact had been deposited in the State Bank of India on 30.07.1977. Since the plaintiff was taken ill, he could not attend the court on the date fixed i.e. 01.08.1977 and thus unable to inform the Court about the deposit. The trial Court accepted the plea on the basis of material placed before it and the suit was restored to its original number. This Court had set aside the order passed by the trial Court by holding that rejection of the plaint amounts to a decree in terms of Section 2(2) CPC and therefore, the appeal lay against the said order of rejection under Section 96 CPC.

7. In Molugu Ram Reddy vs. Molugu Vittal Reddy, [2011(5) Law Herald (SC) 3917 (AP) (FB)] : 2012 (3) RCR (Civil) 731, the question before Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court was “whether an appeal against the order as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 104 read with order 43 Rule 1 CPC or a regular appeal unde Section 96 CPC, is maintainable against the judgment/order passed under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC ? It was held that rejection of a plaint is a “decree” and appealable under Section 96 CPC and further that a miscellaneous appeal against an order rejecting the plaint would not lie.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts as broadly outlined the question would be what appropriate course of action should be adopted in such a situation? In Kaderbhai Peerbhai vs. Husenabu Chandbhai, AIR 1962 Gujarat 59, the facts of the case were almost similar. Gujarat High Court noticed the relevant clauses of the Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing as follows:-

“The plaint