Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5763
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Radhe Shyam Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Shailesh Sharma – Respondent
WP227 No. 33 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dhaneshwar Yadav, Nishant Kumar Sharma
An order rejecting an application for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is not a decree under Section 2(2) and is therefore not appealable under Section 96 of the CPC.
Headnote:The matter involves the interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically Section 2(2), Section 96, and Order 7 Rule 11(d). The petitioners challenged an order where an application for the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 was dismissed by the Trial Court, and a subsequent appeal under Section 96 was dismissed by the Appellate Court as not maintainable. The court found that the rejection of an application to reject a plaint does not constitute a decree. The primary issue was whether an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC is maintainable against an order rejecting an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11. The court reasoned that per Section 2(2) of the CPC, only when an application under Order 7 Rule 11 is allowed and the plaint is actually rejected does the order amount to a decree, making it appealable under Section 96. Consequently, this petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the maintainability of an appeal against the rejection of an order 7 rule 11 application. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. distinction between rejection of a plaint (which is a decree) and rejection of an application to reject a plaint (which is not). (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. granting of liberty to the petitioner to seek other legal remedies. (Para 6) |
1) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the First Appellate Court First A.D.J. Kanker Distt. N.B.Kanker C.G. that the appeal U.S. 96 of the CPC is maintainable against rejecting an application under 0.7 R.11(d) of the CPC.
10.2 That, during pendency of this writ petition the lower court First Civil Judge Class-I Kanker Distt. N.B. Kanker C.G. does not proceed further in Civil Suit No. 21A/2018 and stay the further proceeding.
10.3 That, any other relief which may deem fit may kindly also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court committed an error of law in dismissing the appeal, as per the definition of “decree” under Section 2(2) of the CPC rejection order of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 amounts to a decree.
3) It appears that the petitioners/defendants had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court. Against that order, the defendants preferred a regular appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same was not maintainable.
4) From a bare reading of Section 2(2) of the CPC would make it clear that only when an application under Order 7 Rule 11 is allowed and the plaint is rejected, such an order amounts to a decree and is appealable under Section 96 of the CPC.
5) In the present case, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was rejected, and the suit was permitted to proceed. Hence, such an order does not fall within the definition of a decree and is not appealable under Section 96 of the CPC. Therefore, the learned Court below has not committed any error of law in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. Consequently, this petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
6) However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to law, if so advised.
