IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7702 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.3.2010 Inderjeet s/o Sh. Lachman Das Tuteja ......Petitioner(s) Versus Hardayal Tuteja and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.30130-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.7702 of 2009 This is defendant's revision petition challenging the order dated 12.11.2009 whereby his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint filed by the petitioner on the ground that the plaintiff- respondent has failed to file an affidavit in support of the pleadings and further plaint was not filed in duplicate and the original Will was not produced along with the plaint, has been rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India 2002(2) PLJ 485 had held that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (e) and (f) are procedural and would not require automatic rejection of plaint at the first instance itself and the Court should give an opportunity for rectification of defects if any. Similarly, the Apex Court in Vidyawati Gupta & ors. v. Bhakti Hari Nayak & ors. 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 727 has held that where the plaint is not supported by CR No.7702 of 2009 (O&M) -2- an affidavit, it will not affect validity of plaint and it was a procedural error and the defect can be cured. It may also be noticed that under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) it is only at the stage of leading evidence that the plaintiff requires leave of the Court to produce the documents which he has not annexed with the plaint. Thus, if such document is not attached with the plaint, this will not entail the rejection of the plaint at this stage. The objection with regard to insufficiency of court fee can be taken up by the petitioner in his written statement which is yet to be filed. If any such plea is taken, the same is bound to be decided by the court at an appropriate stage. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. March 4, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE