Civil Revision No.6484 of 2008 : 1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6484 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 14, 2008 Amir Singh Malik ...Petitioner VERSUS Ram Pal Singh Tomar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.K.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the order declining his prayer for dismissing the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. Civil Revision No.6484 of 2008 : 2: Plaintiff Ram Pal Singh Tomar has filed a suit seeking declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction to the effect that certificate dated 1.5.2002 issued by Prop. of M/s Punjab Medical & General Store, Delhi Road, Rohtak is illegal, null and void. Petitioner is impleaded as defendant No.1, who when served filed an application averring that plaintiff-respondent No.1 has misused the process of law by filing this suit making false and vexatious allegations against the petitioner. It is accordingly pleaded that the plaint is liable to be summarily dismissed with costs and hence an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Copy of the application is placed on record as Annexure P-1. It is also pleaded that plaintiff is a stranger and has no locus to file this suit. This application, however, has been declined by the trial court. While doing so, the trial court has noticed the contents of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which give out the grounds on which the plaint can be rejected. Finding that the prayer made in the application is not covered by the grounds as envisaged under the said provision, the application has been declined. It is seen that the petitioner has mainly sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same contains vexatious and malicious averments. As per Order 7 Rule 11, the plaint can be rejected on the following grounds:- (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; Civil Revision No.6484 of 2008 : 3: ( 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 to comply with the provisions of rule 9. Finding that the prayer made by the petitioner is not covered by any of the grounds as afore-mentioned, the application has been dismissed as already noted. It appears that the prayer of the petitioner is more appropriately covered under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC. He has mainly pleaded that the plaint contains vexatious and malicious averments against the defendants. Order 6 Rule 16 provides that the court, at any stage of the proceedings, may order striking out of pleadings or amendment of the plaint which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. On the other hand, the prayer of the petitioner before the trial court was for rejecting the plaint which can be done on the limited grounds as given in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial court, as such, is justified in declining the prayer of the petitioner. The grounds, on which the prayer for rejection of the plaint has been made are apparently not covered Civil Revision No.6484 of 2008 : 4: under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Otherwise also, the counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity in the view taken by the trial court in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The present revision is accordingly dismissed. January 14, 2007 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE