2016 (1) TMI 1482 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - power of Revisional Court for consideration of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. on merit - HELD THAT - Since an order passed in rejecting the claim under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for lack of cause of action amounts to a decree, therefore, such an order is appealable. But where an application under Order 7 Rule 11 is rejected that is not appealable. Under such circumstances, whenever the Court finds illegality or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, then the revisional court has the jurisdiction under Section 115 to consider the legality and sustainability of such orders because it has the effect of leading to a consequence for disposal of the suit. In the event a revision is entertained, then in appropriate case the revisional court may pass appropriate order directing the court below to correctly assess the fact by following the provisions of law, but since the effect of rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(a) has the force of a decree, the revisional court should not pass an order rejecting a plaint while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115. This Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the Revisional Authority has a limited role in the matter of hearing on rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. and in the event, it feels that there is some substance in considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., then the Revisional Authority is to remit the matter back to the Original Authority for fresh consideration of the matter. This Court is of the view that the Revisional Court while considering the revision has exceeded its jurisdiction and therefore, while interfering in the revisional order, this Court sets-aside the same and directs the Revisional Authority to take a decision thereon afresh taking into consideration the observation of this Court - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Revisional Court in considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.
2. Appealability of orders passed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.
3. Scope of Revisional Authority in rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.

Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of Revisional Court:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, arguing that the Revisional Court has limited jurisdiction to consider the legality of the order under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The petitioner contended that if the Revisional Court finds merit in the application, it should remit the matter back to the trial Court for a fresh decision. The opposite parties, however, argued that there was no infirmity in the impugned order and no grounds for interference. The Court referred to the Orissa amendment of Section 115 of C.P.C. and found that the Revision was maintainable due to the amendment made in 2010, even though the suit was from 2009.

2. Appealability of Orders under Order 7 Rule 11:
The Court examined the appealability of orders passed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. by referring to a decision reported in 2004 (9) SC 512. It was noted that a refusal to reject a plaint under this rule is considered a preliminary judgment and hence appealable. However, the Court highlighted that the amended provision in C.P.C. in 2010 altered the scenario, making the decision from 2004 inapplicable to the present case. The Court emphasized that the revision by the opposite parties was maintainable based on the current legal framework.

3. Scope of Revisional Authority in Rejecting a Plaint:
The Court delved into the scope of the Revisional Authority in rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. by citing a decision from Vol. 96 (2003) CLT 323. It was established that an order rejecting a claim under this rule amounts to a decree and is appealable. However, when an application under this rule is rejected, it is not appealable. The Court clarified that if there is an illegality or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application, the Revisional Court has the jurisdiction to consider the legality and sustainability of such orders. The Court directed the Revisional Authority to reevaluate the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, setting aside the previous revisional order.

In conclusion, the Court found that the Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction while considering the revision and directed a fresh consideration of the matter, emphasizing adherence to the legal provisions and previous decisions.