Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 91
AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR No. 80 of 2023 • Tarachand Sahu S/o Late Khelu Sahu, Aged About 37 Years R/o Basti Gali, Village Sher, Patwari Halka No. 78, Post Kanekera, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. Ganeshsiya Bai D/o Late Meghnath Sahu, R/o Village Sher, Post Kanekera, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.)
2. Gautam Bai D/o Late Meghnath Sahu, R/o Village Sher, Post Kanekera, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.)
3. Smt. Chitrekha W/o Shri Diamond Sahu, R/o Village Kharhari, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
4. Smt. Puna D/o Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu, R/o Hichha, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.)
5. Smt. Ishwari W/o Munna Sah, R/o Village Soramsindhi, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.)
6. Hirmoti W/o Shri Kishore Sahu, R/o Village Parsatthi, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.)
7. Smt. Gayatri W/o Shri Pannalal Sahu, R/o Village Bamhni, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.)
8. Fekanbai D/o Shri Chandrabhan Sahu, R/o Village Kurrubhata, Post Khamhariya, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.)
9. Panchobai D/o Shri Chandrabhan Sahu, R/o Village Gundardehi (Fingeshwar), District Gariyaband (C.G.)
10.Onkar S/o Late Jagatram Sahu
11.Harendra S/o Late Jagatram Sahu, 12.Deepak Kumar S/o Late Tarachand Sahu, 13.Horilal S/o Late Tarachand Sahu
14.Meenabai D/o Late Tarachand Sahu
15.Hirabai D/o Late Tarachand Sahu
16.Shanti Bai Wd/o Late Tarachand Sahu
17.Devlal S/o Shri Shivnath Sahu 18.Kailash S/o Sohan Manikpuri All respondent No.10 to 18 R/o Village Sher, Post Kanekera, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.)
19.State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
20.The Sub-Divisional OfÏcer Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.)
21.The Tahsildar Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Respondent For Applicant Mr. Palash Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.1 Mr. AN Bhakta, Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order On Board
23/1/2024 1. Heard.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2023 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Mahasamund (CG) in Civil Suit No.29-A/2021, whereby, an application preferred by the respondents/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the CPC”), was allowed and the plaint was rejected, the present Revision has been filed.
3. At the outset, the seminal question, which arose for consideration before this Court, is whether the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is revisable under Section 115 of the CPC or appealable under Section 96 thereof. The grounds for rejection of the plaint have been stated under Order
7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
4. Section 2(2) of the CPC defines “decree”, which reads thus :
S.2(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within (***) section 144, but shall not include-
(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default.
5. On perusal of the above definition, it is explicit that it is an inclusive definition and the rejection of the plaint by legal fiction has been deemed a ‘decree’. Once it is held that the rejection of the plaint is a decree, as a natural corollary, an appeal would lie. In view of the language of Section 2(2) of the Code, order rejecting the plaint has got to be treated as a ‘decree’.
6. In the matter of Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad and others, (1973) 2 SCC 524, it has been categorically held that an order rejecting the plaint is appealable and is a decree. The relevant portion (para 3 ) reads thus : “3……………..In the present case the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Such an order amounts to a decree under Section 2(2) and there is a right of appeal open to the plaintiff…………………”
7. In the present case, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and such order amounts to a decree under Section 2(2) of the CPC and remedy of appeal is available to the plaintiff.
8. The similar issue has come up before the Patna High Court in the matter of Meera Sinha Vs. Girja Sinha and another, AIR 2009 PATNA 19, in which, the following was held at para 19 :
“We are of the considered opinion that an order rejecting the plaint is nothing but a decree and as such shall not be revisable under Section
115 of the Code but shall be appealable under Section 96 thereof.”
9. In view of the above settled proposition, it is quite vivid that against the rejection of the plaint, which amounts to a decree by legal fiction, an appeal would lie under Section 96 thereof and the revision is not maintainable.
10.Accordingly, the revision is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the applicant would be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy available to him under the law.
