JUDGMENT :

Vijai Kumar Bist, J.

This revision has been preferred by the revisionist under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”) against the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Yangang Sub-Division, South Sikkim at Yangang, by which an application filed by the revisionist under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. has been rejected.

2. In this matter, notice was issued to the respondents on 21.08.2018. The case was listed on 24.09.2018. Registry submitted its report stating that respondents no. 1 and 2 had been duly served. Respondent no. 2 appeared in person before the Court on that day, but none appeared for respondent no. 1. The Court again directed to serve notice upon respondent no. 1 through the Process Server of the Civil Court, South Sikkim. In compliance to the said order, learned District & Sessions Judge, South Sikkim sent a communication to this Court informing that the notice was duly served upon the respondent no. 1. The revision was heard and admitted and was listed for final hearing on 19.11.2018. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for respondents no. 1 and 2. The matter was fixed for ex-parte hearing and was heard ex-parte.

3. Respondent no. 1/plaintiff instituted a Title Suit No. 01 of 2018 for declaration, confirmation and recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and other consequential reliefs along with an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The revisionist/defendant no. 1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections and gave para-wise reply. The revisionist/defendant no. 1 also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. In his application, the revisionist/defendant no. 1 stated that earlier in the year 2015 the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 had filed a Title Suit No. 05 of 2015 seeking declaration, confirmation and recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and other consequential reliefs along with an application under Section XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. before the District Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi, and valued his suit at Rs.12,20,000/-. He also stated that the plaintiff/ respondent no. 1 had deliberately concealed this fact and on that ground the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. needed to be allowed and the case of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 to be dismissed. It is also stated that as per the plaintiff’s own admission, pleadings and the documents filed by him, the cause of action arose in the year 2013, and thus, the case of plaintiff is directly hit by the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and the title suit filed by him is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. It is also stated that as per the plaintiff’s own admission and pleadings, the suit is undervalued.

4. The plaintiff in his reply stated that the earlier suit filed by him was withdrawn on the ground of technical errors and the Court was pleased to allow the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh. As far as cause of action is concerned, the plaintiff admitted the fact that the cause of action arose in the year 2013 but denied that the suit is hit by provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Regarding valuation of the suit, the plaintiff stated that even in the event that the suit is found to be undervalued, the same cannot be dismissed rather the plaintiff is required to be given a chance to rectify the valuation of the suit and pay the requisite court fees.

5. Learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties, rejected the application filed by the revisionist/defendant no. 1 under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in the following manner : -

“Heard and considered.

A perusal of the petition, documents and after hearing the Ld. Counsel for the defendant No.1, it is seen that the defendant No. 1 has sought for rejection of the plaint on two grounds. The first being that it does not reveal any cause of action. This issue has been correctly addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff wherein he has relied upon the judg