IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 290 of 2002. Date of decision: 23.10.2008. Narainji Dass ….. Petitioner Versus Kamla Devi & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Nurpur, dated 6.2.2002, vide which the learned trial Court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the revision petition. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Record of the case was also summoned. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the case was fixed for consideration of the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and the learned trial Court on the said date proceeded to pass an order under Order 7 Rule 11 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 C.P.C. rejecting the plaint without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. To controvert the points taken by the learned trial Court in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., it was submitted that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to answer the points raised by the learned trial Court in the impugned order and as such, the said order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 submitted that the plaint has been rejected on two grounds firstly, that the petitioner had not deposited the costs as per the order of the Appellate Court which was a sine-qua-non for filing the fresh suit. It was also submitted that since the suit was prima facie barred by limitation since relief of declaration was sought, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. On this point, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the suit was filed prima facie for possession and as such, there was no limitation prescribed and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. provides that under what circumstances the plaint shall be rejected. The two main points are that it does not disclose a cause of action or it appears to be barred by any law and on some other grounds in regard to valuation etc. as prescribed therein. The powers to reject a plaint normally are exercised when the plaint is presented to the Court. However, in my view these powers cannot be restricted to the initial stage only and if at any stage the Court is of the opinion that the plaint is to be rejected, the Court should hear both the parties and then pass an appropriate order. However, the plaintiff cannot be taken by surprise that one fine morning the learned trial Court considers that on these grounds, the plaint should be rejected and the order is passed accordingly without giving an opportunity to both the 3 parties to present their case in regard to the points upon which the plaint is sought to be rejected. Coming to the facts of the case, the case was fixed for consideration of the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. However, instead of deciding the said application, the Court proceeded to pass the impugned order without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case, on which the plaint is sought to be rejected. In my view, the case should have been fixed for consideration if the plaint deserves to be rejected on the grounds which should have also been mentioned in the order sheet so that the parties can make their submissions on these points before the Court passes any order for rejection of plaint. However, this was not done and Court proceeded to reject the plaint without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to make his submissions particularly when the plaint had not been rejected at the initial stage and the case was being proceeded further but the said order was passed without notice to the parties as to what was in the mind of the Court at the time of passing the impugned order. In view of the above discussion, in my view, the learned trial Court was required to fix the case for consideration if the plaint deserves to be rejected and on what grounds and then opportunity should have been given to both the parties to make submissions and then the Court was required to pass an appropriate order. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the case shall go back to the learned trial Court who shall fix the case for consideration of the question and shall mention the point on which the plaint is sought to be rejected and shall give an opportunity to both the parties to make their submissions and then shall decide the question accordingly. The revision petition is accordingly accepted in 4 these terms. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 24th November, 2008. A copy of this order alongwith record be returned to the trial Court. V.K. Ahuja ) October 23, 2008 Judge (BSS)