C i-~is IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No.-^/Q ./2S!£&^ T" 8§R,ffli APPUCANT / DEFENDANT N0.; -:^3^; zM?4; %- ••.SiV.V » .^u' Jagmohan Sahu S/o Late. Shri. Uiurao Sahu ,Aged about 38 years, R/o Village Bhansoj , Tehsil Aaraag, District Raipur Chhatdsgarh. S^s.-- VERSUS NQN-APPUCANTS 7 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT N0.2 1. Mantora Bai Aged About 44 years W/o Manharan Sahu R/o Vfflage Nara , TehsU Aaraag , District Raipur(C.G.) 2. Mantoriya Bai Aged about 42 years W/o Shri Dharmpal Sahu , VUlage Bhansoj Tehsil Aarang , District Raipur,(C.G.) 3. Smt. Pyari Bai, Aged About 40 years W/o Sahtosh Sahu, village Chakzaadu, Tehsil Aarang, District, Raipur(C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh fhrough CoUector Raipur, CoUectorate, Raipur (C.G.) APPUCATION FOR REVISION UNDER SECT10N 115 CQDE OFC:[VILPRQCEDURE,1908 -- --S ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 01 of 2010 A&plicant Defendant No. 1 Non-apDlicants : Plaintiffs Jagmohan Sahu Versus Mantora Bai & Others. Civil Revision Under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.l Present : Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate for applicant. Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer forState. ORAL ORDER. 1. (Passed on 8* day OfJanuary, 2010) Heard on admission. The present revision arises from the order dated 09.10.09, passed by Vllth Civil Judge, Class II Raipur, in Civil SuitNo. 5A/09 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 1 1 of CPC has been rejected. Due to procedural defect of not presenting the plaint in duplicate to the court, the earlier suit was rejected by the trial court invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC with liberty to filefresh suit, although the plaintiff had submitted the other copy of the plaint with affidavit. The instant suit has been preferred by the plaintiff on the same cayse of action claimingsome more reliefs. The applicant herein raised an objection by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 1 1 of CPC that the identical relief has not been claimed by the respondent but in the instant suit some more reliefs have been claimed which is not in accordance with the liberty '\ T~" hr granted by the trial court and the suit being not maintainable deserves to be dismissed. 5. The trial court vide impugnedorder dismissed the application on the ground that the suit has been filed on the same cause of action and by merely addingisome more reliefs, it cannot be said that the suit is barred. It is further observed by the trial court that under Order 7 Rule 13 of CPC, new suit on the same cause of action is not barred. 6. Shri Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that as the suit has not been filed claiming same relief as claimed by the plaintiff in the earlier suit and therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected. 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the order impinged. 8. I do not find any substance in the submission made by the applicant. As per Order4 Rule 1(3) of CPC, the plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rules (1) and (2). 9, A bare perusal of aforesaid provision would reveal that if the plaint is not filed in duplicate to thecourt then it cannot be said that the plaint is duly instituted. However, the trialcourt rejected the plaint with liberty to file fresh, meaning thereby that liberty to file the same by filing the plaint in duplicate to the court. Now atsuch stage the plaintiff is always at liberty to amend the relief and claim several reliefs. It is not a case where although the plaintiff is entitled to claim several reliefs but he has relinquished any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit with the jurisdiction of any v:•"' .Sahu court, and therefore, if the instant suit instituted claiming some more reliefs, cannot be said to be barred under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) or under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. 10. For the foregoing, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has not committed any jurisdictional illegality warranting interference of this court under its revisional jurisdiction. 11. In view of the above, the revision being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge :^"\ -x