C E HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(under Article 221) No. \7‘k> [2011 ERS /1] Patasi Bai, Wd/o. Annaraj NTIFFS ’ Jain/Chopda, R/o. Station Road, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) /2] Prakashchand Chopda, S/o. Annaraj Jain/Chopda, R/o. 18 Recreation Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Jasraj Jain/Chopda, S/o. Annaraj Jain, R/o. Gandhi Chowk, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Gyanchand Jain/Chopda, S/o. Annaraj Jain, aged about 48 years, R/o. Station Road, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Ajay Kumar Jain/Chopda, S/o. Annaraj Jain, R/o. Ward No.11, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Vijay Kumar Jain/Chopda, S/o. Annaraj Jain, aged about 44 years, R/o. Ward No. 11, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS ENTS /1] Muslim Jamat Jama Masjid DEENDANTS Committee, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Mutavalli, Muslim Jagat Jamat Jama Masjid Committee, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3] Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board, / through: Chief Executive Officer, Sector-3, C—12, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) fN TH PETITION PLAI RESPOND F CID WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 222 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 129 of 2011 PETITIONERS Patasi Bai & others Plaintiffs VERSUS RESPONDENTS Defgndants : Muslim Jamat Jama Masjid Committee Mahasamund & others (V_VRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) . (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J4 H Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri JA Lohani, Advocate for respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. i ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08.01.2011) 1. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard tinaiiy. 2. instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of indie calls in question the legality and propriety of order dated 13.12.201 0, whereby and whereunder the trial court has rejected the plaint fried by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of CPC holding plaint does not disclose cause of action. 3. Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition has been raised by therespondent No. 1 & 2 against the order of rejection of plaint on the ground that efficacious and statutory aiternative remedy under Section 96 of CPC is available to the petitioners and therefore petition fried is not maintainabie. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and peruse the order impugned. “m i wwww V __ ’ > @é Once the plaint is rejected, then obviousiy nothing is pending before the court. That order is fonnai expression of an \ adjudication, which so far as regards the court expressing it! conciusively determines the rights of the parties. in fact Section 2 ' of CPC which defines the term decree specifically states that decree shaii be deemed to include rejection of plaint. Section 96 of CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Thus, the legal position is that, as against the order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC, statutory remedy of wing appeal under Section 96 of CPC is available to the petitioner. Since efficacious and altemative remedy of tiling statutory appeal ; under Section 96 of CPC is available to the petitioner, the petition tiled without availing the altemative remedy is not maintainable and " therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter the petition is dismissed. d However, it is made clear that petitioners are at liberty to file First Appeal against the order impugned. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge {.Vahu @fkwwwst ,, , ,