The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of the averments in the plaint for deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC and the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal under section 34 of the Adhiniyam.

ORDER : – The petitioner has filed present revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short C.P.C) being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9-9-2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 99-A/2021, whereby an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC before the trial Court and raised a preliminary objection to maintainability of such a civil suit contending that in view of section 66 of MP Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (in short Adhiniyam) the jurisdiction of Civil Court was excluded and cancellation of license could not be challenged before the Civil Court. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 9-9-2021, hence present revision before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff has not given any notice before filing of the suit to the petitioner/defendant and as per sections 66 and 67 of Adhiniyam, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in this matter. The trial Court has not considered that the civil suit is expressly barred and at the time of consideration of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, only plaint averments are relevant. The plaintiff has even not properly valued the suit and the Court fee was not accordingly paid. The trial Court has committed material irregularity in holding that section 9 of the CPC would be applicable. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is bad in law and is not sustainable, hence learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner by supporting the impugned order passed by the Court below.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the parties and carefully examined the documents filed along with present revision.

6. The trial Court has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. On the basis of that, the matter should be adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings filed by the defendant and other objections should be decided on the basis of the evidence given by both the parties on merit. Therefore, short question that arises for consideration of this petition is whether an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC ought to be decided on the allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement and evidence on merit is irrelevant and unnecessary.

7. In such circumstances, Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. which reads as under :

“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 by the plaint is written 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, failed to do so: (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) Where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9; 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 for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed b