THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3704 of 2010 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.6 of 2005 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa against respondent No.2 and the petitioner for the relief of cancellation of the sale deed and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. However, the plaint was rejected on 17.10.2005. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.1181 of 2005 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 17.10.2005. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through its order, dated 03.04.2010. Hence, this revision. Smt.P.Rajani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the plaint was rejected, the only remedy available to respondent No.1 was to file an appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. and the I.A. under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. was not maintainable at all. This Court is rather surprised to know the manner in which the trial Court dealt with the suit. After the plaint was presented by respondent No.1, the Office raised certain objections. On compliance with those objections, the suit was ultimately numbered. The order through which the plaint was rejected reads as under: “Particulars with regard to registration, name of the Registrar Office are not furnished, within one week, as per check slip order, dated 15.06.2005. Affidavit of P.W.1 is filed in Office on 29.09.2005. I have perused the report of Office and the particulars with regard to the registration, name of the Registrar Office are not furnished as directed on 15.06.2005. Plaintiff is not showing interest. Hence, the plaint is rejected.” To say the least, the order passed by the then learned Senior Civil Judge is irresponsible, if not patently illegal. The ground mentioned in the order is referable to a stage before the suit was numbered. Even if there exists any ground for rejection of the plaint, after it was numbered, respondent No.1 ought to have been put on notice. There was absolutely no justification for rejecting the plaint by referring to a fact, which can be taken into account only before it is numbered. Be that as it may, since the order was passed without hearing the petitioner and in his absence, it is nothing more than a default order. When an order dismissing the suit for default, otherwise than by way of rejection of the plaint, can be set aside in an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C, there is no reason why such a facility can be denied to respondent No.1. If the circumstances that warrant the rejection of the plaint still exist, they can certainly be considered by the Court on its own accord or at the instance of the petitioner herein. At least, after half a decade, the trial Court has chosen to correct the mistake committed by it. No exception can be taken by the order under Revision. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. It is however left open to the petitioner to file an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, if he is so advised and if there exists any grounds therefor. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.08.2010 kdl