The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Nimrata Shergill and another Versus Shop Owners Welfare Association observed that a decree includes an order rejecting plaint under order 7 rule 11 CPC, and is amenable to remedy of appeal u/s 96.
It observed that “By decree, it is implied that it is a formal expression of an adjudication by a Court of law, wherein, the rights of the parties are conclusively determined with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in a suit. Further, the term 'decree' would include within its ambit an order of rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code, as would be evident from the expression "shall be deemed to include the rejection of plaint" appearing in Section 2(2) of Code.”
The Petitioner was also asked to prove the present petition’s maintainability under Article 227. In furtherance of this, the Senior Counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was extensive and it could be exercised to check and correct any patent error or illegality committed by a subordinate Court. He thus submitted that in the aforementioned circumstances, since the trial Court had not complied with the mandatory procedure envisaged under Order XXXVII of Code and still further illegally adjudicated upon an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code, the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would be maintainable.
However, the Court observed that “In the circumstances, when there does exist a statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order, this Court does not deem it appropriate to entertain the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court also relied upon Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Ors. Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Ors., in which it was laid down that:
“.......courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before Civil Courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil procedure and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High court…….”
“..... Therefore, wherever the proceedings are under the Code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self-imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227 especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself.”