For a plaint rejection under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint are considered; defendants' rebuttals cannot be included in the assessment.

JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition assails the order dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

2. A suit for possession and mesne profits was filed by the respondent-plaintiff Sushila Devi against the petitioners-defendants. The suit property is a 3 Vi storey building situated at Village Tilpat, Faridabad. The respondent-plaintiff and petitioner-defendant No.1 are wives of two real brothers. The claim of the respondent-plaintiff is that the disputed building is owned and possessed by her and that the petitioners-defendants are in illegal possession of the same.

3. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-6) was moved by the petitioners-defendants seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that since as per the own case of the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioners-defendants were tenants, the suit for possession would not be maintainable. As per the averments made in the application, an eviction petition filed by the respondent-plaintiff had already been dismissed and appeal filed against the order of dismissal had been withdrawn. It was averred that after the said decisions, a suit for possession could not have been filed. The plea of insufficient court fee having been affixed was also raised.

4. The application was opposed by way of a reply. Preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the application were raised. It was averred that the eviction petition had been dismissed as the relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established. A suit for declaration and injunction had been filed by the husband of petitioner-defendant No.1 which had been partly decreed and it was held that the respondent-plaintiff could seek possession in due course of law. With regard to the court fee, it was averred that the suit was properly valued and the sale deed with regard to the disputed building had been executed at the circle rate price of Rs.2,50,000/-and accordingly court fee of Rs. 15,100/- had been affixed (Annexure P-7).

5. The application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2022 leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the paper book.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for rejection of plaint. Much emphasis has been laid on the point that once the eviction petition had been dismissed, a suit for possession would not be maintainable and the respondent-plaintiff could seek eviction under the provisions of the Rent Act. It has also been submitted that inadequate court fee had been paid and on this ground also the plaint deserves to be rejected. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.1074 of 1976 tided as Puran Chand v. Nikka Ram decided on 13.07.1984 and RSA No.273 of 1974 tided as Ram Kumar and others v. Bahai Kaur decided on 06.10.1982.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners but find the same to be devoid of merit.

9. Firstly, the impugned order was passed as far back as on 15.09.2022 and the revision petition has been preferred in September, 2023 i.e. one year after the passing of the impugned order. No valid explanation has been furn