THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P. No. 3418 of 2010 O R D E R: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order passed in unnumbered I.A. in O.S. No. 575 of 2008 dated 5.7.2010 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint in O.S. No. 575 of 2008 on the ground that it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, was rejected. Learned Judge, after examined the evidence and the law, recorded the following followings while rejecting the plaint: “On perusal of the suit docket, it seems that the plaint was returned many times pointing out various objections and every time it was resubmitted by complying the objections raised by the Office of this Court, finally it was called on Bench on 17.6.2008 for by the plaintiff advocate and on that day, the valuation is raised up to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid increased C.F. and the plaint was accepted and the suit is numbered as Original Suit on 19.6.2008. The plaint shall be rejected according to Order 7 Rule 11, which reads as follows: (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, but 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 fails 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 comply with the provisions of Rule 9. On plain reading of above provision of law, I found no such grounds in the plaint to reject the same. The plaint is as per provisions of law. The petitioner also not enumerated any grounds in this petition as per Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint in O.S. 575/2006. Accordingly the petition is rejected”. Aggrieved thereby, the present C.R.P. is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. M. Venkateshwari strenuously contended that in fact the suit ought not to have been numbered. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC requires filing of certain documents to make a prima facie case for the purpose of numbering the suit. In fact, time and again the plaint was returned and re-submitted and one fine day it was numbered without examining as to cause of action and whether basic documents required to be filed by the plaintiff are filed or not. Further, in respect of very same property a suit in O.S. No. 1377 of 2002 is pending between the parties on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. Therefore, this suit ought not to have been numbered and it should have been rejected in limini or after filing the present application. The present application is dismissed without examining as to whether the suit was filed without satisfying the basic requirements of law under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. I am afraid I cannot accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Judge, as noticed above, has furnished cogent reasons for rejecting the case of the petitioner. Apart from that, in a given case, more than one suit could be filed between the same parties in various Courts, but that itself does not mean that the suit filed at the first instance or the later suit requires to be rejected. Since such things are not unusual, the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates Section 10 for the purpose of staying the suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where suit is pending in the same or any other Court having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the I.A. filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The C.R.P. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is so advised, he may file an application under Section 10 of CPC for the purpose of staying the trial of the suit – O.S. No. 575 of 2008 – and, if any such application is filed, the Court below may dispose of the same in accordance with law. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 28-10-2010. MVB.