Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. M. Veluswami for Petr.
  • Mr. P. Venkataraman for Respt.
Judges
  • Gokulakrishnan, J.
Acts
  • S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act under S. 115 C.P.C
  • S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act,
  • Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C
  • Order 7, Rule 11,
  • Order 7 Rule
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. M. Veluswami for Petr.
  • Mr. P. Venkataraman for Respt.
Judges
  • Gokulakrishnan, J.
Acts
  • S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act under S. 115 C.P.C
  • S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act,
  • Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C
  • Order 7, Rule 11,
  • Order 7 Rule
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judicial Opinion Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner (plaintiff) had filed an unnumbered plaint (No./74 (A. 2394/74)) in the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, claiming Rs. 2,250 as damages for three crops in respect of the suit land for the period 13 July 1972 to 15 September 1973. The same land was the subject-matter of O.S. No. 358 of 1972 (a separate suit for permanent injunction) on the same court’s file. In O.S. No. 358 of 1972 the plaintiff obtained an interim injunction on 24 July 1972 (served on 26 July 1972) and, after trial, a decree for permanent injunction was granted on 29 September 1973.

The trial court rejected the unnumbered plaint for damages, observing (inter alia) that the plaintiff had not complained of dispossession during the relevant period, that he had been in possession from the date of taking delivery, that a suit for damages (mesne profits) was not maintainable against a defendant who was subject to a decree for permanent injunction in the relevant period, and ordered refund of the court-fee.

Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition to the High Court. The revision raises a maintainability objection: the respondent contends that the order rejecting the plaint is a "decree" within S.2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) and therefore the proper remedy is an appeal (not revision); the petitioner contends the High Court has revisional jurisdiction under S.115 C.P.C. to correct the trial court's error.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether an order rejecting a plaint is to be treated as a "decree" within the meaning of S.2(2) C.P.C. such that the proper remedy is an appeal rather than a civil revision under S.115 C.P.C.
  2. Whether the High Court may entertain a civil revision under S.115 C.P.C. against an order rejecting a plaint when an appeal would lie (directly or indirectly) to the High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (Plaintiff's) Arguments

  • The High Court has corrective jurisdiction under S.115 C.P.C. and can rectify errors committed by the trial court.
  • Because the court has entertained the revision petition, it has ample jurisdiction to revise the trial court's order rejecting the plaint.
  • No appeal lies to the High Court in the circumstances asserted by the petitioner (implying that revision is the appropriate remedy).
  • The rejection was not under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., and only a rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 would fall within the S.2(2) definition of "decree" (supporting the argument that revision may lie).

Respondent's (Defendant's) Arguments

  • Under S.2(2) C.P.C., a "decree" includes an order rejecting a plaint; hence the impugned order is a decree and the remedy is an appeal, not a revision.
  • High Court revisional jurisdiction under S.115 C.P.C. does not extend to interfere where an appeal is available; authorities, including S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon, support that no revision lies to the High Court where an appeal lies directly or indirectly.
  • Authorities were cited to show that the instances in Order 7 Rule 11 (and similar provisions) are not exhaustive and the court has inherent powers to reject a plaint on other grounds; therefore rejection of a plaint is appealable and not necessarily limited to reasons in a particular rule.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon (Supreme Court) Interpreted S.115 C.P.C.: no revision to the High Court where an appeal lies directly or indirectly. The court relied on this Supreme Court holding to support the view that where an appeal lies, revision is not maintainable; the decision has been followed by many High Court judgments and influenced the court's conclusion.
Amba Shankar (Plaintiff) v. Seoti (Defendant) (Allahabad Single Judge) Held that rejection of plaint for reasons under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. only will come within the definition of "decree" under S.2(2) C.P.C. The court noted this decision as the primary authority supporting the petitioner's narrower view; but treated it as an isolated authority and not decisive against the larger body of precedent to the contrary.
Munusamy v. Chengalvaraya Decision concerned an order refusing to review a judgment; cited in the opinion to distinguish applicability. The court observed this case is not an authority for the proposition that a revision lies against an order rejecting a plaint, because it dealt with refusal to review a judgment.
Seshadri v. Krishnaiah Civil revision petition entertained by the court (details not discussing the specific maintainability question). The court recorded that Seshadri was not a discussion of whether revision or appeal lies against rejection of a plaint and therefore not directly helpful on the main issue.
Vaishnava College for Women v. Mrs. Alleyamma Thommas Ramanujam Held that revision is maintainable in that case; used where no appeal lies. The court noted this decision is not a case against an order rejecting a plaint and involved circumstances where no appeal lay; thus it does not support the petitioner's position here.
Chinna v. Govindaswami (S.9 Specific Relief Act context) High Court's power under S.115 C.P.C. to interfere with orders under S.9 of the Specific Relief Act in the interest of justice. The court observed this case concerned S.9 Specific Relief Act and, while recognizing High Court powers under S.115, it did not establish that revision lies where an appeal is available.
K. Virupakshiah v. M. Shivalingaiah Decision not arising from an order rejecting a plaint. The court stated it does not support the petitioner because it was not a case about rejection of a plaint.
Satyanarayanacharlu v. Ramalingam Where additional court-fee payment was not complied with and followed by rejection of plaint, revision against the rejection is not maintainable; remedy by appeal against the decree. The court cited this authority for the proposition that where a plaint is rejected in those circumstances, revision is not maintainable and appeal is the proper remedy.
Harihar Bakish Singh v. Jagannath Singh (Oudh Court) Held that the instances in O.7 R.11 are not exhaustive and the court has inherent powers (S.151) to reject a plaint on other grounds. The court relied on this line of authority (and related cases) as supporting the view that rejection of a plaint is not confined to O.7 R.11 and that such orders are amenable to appeal rather than revision.
Lakshman Chetty v. Lakshmanan Chettiar Recognized that a court can dismiss a suit filed by a next friend of a minor if continuation is not in the minor's interest (example of inherent power). Cited in support of the principle that courts possess inherent jurisdiction to dismiss or reject suits on grounds beyond enumerated rules, reinforcing the authority to treat rejection as appealable.
Radhakrishnan v. Wall Md (Hyderabad High Court) Held the instances in O.8 R.11 cannot be regarded as exhaustive or as limiting inherent powers of the court to reject a plaint. Used to support the proposition that rejection of plaints is not limited to the listed instances and thus is generally appealable.
Lakshmanan v. Lakshmanan Affirmed the proposition that against rejection of the plaint, only an appeal lies. The court treated this as one of the authorities making it clear that appeal (not revision) is the proper remedy against rejection of a plaint.
Badri Nath v. State of Pepsu Also holds that against the rejection of the plaint only an appeal lies. Considered by the court as reinforcing the conclusion that appeal is the proper remedy and that rejection is encompassed by S.2(2) C.P.C.'s definition of "decree".
C.R.P. S.R. No. 51709 of 1972 (dated 31 Oct 1974) High Court decision following S.S. Khanna's principle (referenced by the court). Noted as one of several High Court decisions following the Supreme Court's reasoning that precludes revision where an appeal lies; the court mentioned it as part of the supporting authority.
C.R.P. Nos. 1853 of 1970 and 2542 of 1970 Cases cited by petitioner but described as following Munusamy v. Chengalvaraya and therefore not authoritative for the petitioner's point. The court observed these cannot be taken as authority for the petitioner's proposition because they follow Munusamy, which deals with refusal to review and is inapplicable here.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in the following analytical steps (as stated in the opinion):

  1. Preliminary observation: The court acknowledged that prima facie the trial court's rejection of the plaint on the grounds stated (regarding maintainability of damages claim while a decree for permanent injunction stood) might be erroneous; however, such issues require full discussion and decision based on evidence and arguments in an appropriate forum.
  2. Maintainability objection: The respondent's primary objection was that the present revision is not maintainable because, under S.2(2) C.P.C., a "decree" includes an order rejecting a plaint, and where a matter is a "decree" the remedy is by way of appeal, not revision.
  3. Petitioner's reply: The petitioner relied on S.115 C.P.C. to argue that the High Court can correct errors and therefore entertain revision. He further urged that the rejection was not under Order 7 Rule 11 and that only a rejection under that rule would fall within the S.2(2) definition of "decree".
  4. Review of authorities: The court examined the competing authorities. It highlighted S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon (Supreme Court) as establishing that no revision lies to the High Court where an appeal lies directly or indirectly, and noted that multiple High Court decisions follow that principle. The court observed that the amount claimed (Rs. 2,250) meant a second appeal would lie to the High Court, thereby indicating that an appellate remedy exists.
  5. Treatment of contrary authority: The court acknowledged the Allahabad decision (Amba Shankar v. Seoti) cited by the petitioner which held that only rejections under Order 7 Rule 11 fall within S.2(2). The court characterized this as an isolated decision and assessed other cited cases as not directly on point or distinguishable (for example, Munusamy v. Chengalvaraya concerned refusal to review and was not an authority on rejection-of-plaint issues).
  6. Consideration of inherent powers and broader authorities: The respondent's cited decisions (including Harihar Bakish Singh, Lakshman Chetty, Radhakrishnan, etc.) were noted for the proposition that the instances enumerated in procedural rules are not exhaustive and courts have inherent powers to reject plaints on various grounds; several decisions reinforce that rejection orders are amenable to appeal.
  7. Conclusion from authorities and statutory text: Balancing the authorities and the statutory language (S.2(2) C.P.C. which states that "decree" includes rejection of plaint), the court concluded that the remedy for the petitioner (if any) is by way of appeal rather than revision to the High Court.
  8. Practical consideration: The court accepted the petitioner's concern about limitation if redirected to appeal, but indicated that the petitioner could seek condonation of delay and that courts would take into account time spent litigating in the wrong forum when considering limitation.

Holding and Implications

Final Holding: The Civil Revision Petition is DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

Direct consequences for the parties:

  • The petitioner’s revision is dismissed; the petitioner’s available remedy is to prefer an appeal against the order rejecting the plaint.
  • If delay arises in preferring an appeal, the petitioner may apply for condonation of delay; the court observed that time taken in litigating before a wrong forum will be a relevant consideration in such an application.
  • There will be no order as to costs (the court expressly ordered "no order as to costs").

Broader implications: The opinion applies established authority that where an appeal lies (directly or indirectly) the High Court should not entertain a revision under S.115 C.P.C.; the court did not purport to lay down any novel precedent beyond applying those authorities to the facts. The opinion concludes that rejection of the plaint is encompassed by S.2(2) C.P.C. such that appeal is the proper remedy.

V.C.S
Show full summary ...

    R. Shanmughavelu Pillai v. R. Karuppanna Ambalam

    1. The plaintiff in an unfiled plaint No./74 (A. 2394/74) on the file of the District Munsif of Madurai Taluk at Madurai has preferred the above revision petition against an order rejecting the plaint on 9th April 1974.

    2. The petitioner herein as plaintiff claimed damages for Rs. 2250 for three crops from the suit land for the period from 13th July 1972 to 15th September 1973. The suit land was also the subject matter of the suit in O.S No. 358 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk at Madurai. It was a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, The plaintiff obtained interim injunction on 24th July 1972, and the order was served on the defendant on 26th July 1972. After full trial, the suit in O.S No. 358 of 1972 was decreed ordering permanent injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff has pleaded in that suit that he was in possession of the suit lands on the date of the filing of the suit and the decree was passed on 29th September 1973. It is for the same period the plaintiff in the unnumbered suit claimed damages as stated above. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant has been restrained from entering into the suit land from 24th July 1972 to 29th September 1973. The defendant obsstructed the plaintiff from enjoying the suit land. The trial court observing that the plaintiff never complained that he was dispossessed by the defendant for the relevant period that in as much as the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property from the date of taking delivery, the suit for damages for three crops is not maintainable, and that the plaintiff cannot claim damage by way of mesne profits from the defendant against whom a decree for permanent injunction was in force during the relevant period held the plaint is not maintainable. On these grounds the trial court rejected the plaint ordering the court-fee paid on the plaint be refunded.

    3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Court below, the plaintiff has preferred the above Civil Revision Petition. Prima facie it looks that the order of rejection upon a suit for damages on the ground stated by the trial court is erroneous. Nevertheless the matter has to be discussed and decided upon proper evidence and arguments by the respective parties before the appropriate forum. Mr. Venkataraman, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant (respondent herein) took up an objection that the revision is not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, under S. 2(2) C.P.C she decree will include the rejection of a plaint. The rejection of the plaint which is being questioned in this revision petition is construed as a decree, and only an appeal has to be filed and not a revision.

    4. Mr. Velusamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the High Court under the powers vested in it is S. 115 C.P.C, can always correct the errors committed by the trial court. The learned counsel also submitted that this court having entertained the revision petition, has ample jurisdiction to revise the order by the trial Court. The learned counsel further contended that no appeal will lie to the High Court and as such there is no bar for this court to entertain the revision petition under S. 115 C.P.C

    5. Number of decisions were cited by both sides, for their respective contentions. In S.S Khanna v. F.J Dillon(1) the Supreme Court has specifically held that no revision will lie to the High Court, the Supreme Court interpreting Section 115 of the C.P.C has held that no revision will lie to the High Court in case where an appeal will lie to the High Court directly or indirectly. This decision was followed by many judgments of our High Court, including myself in C.R.P S.R No. 51709 of 1972 dated 31st October, 1974. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the damages sought to be recovered is more than Rs. 2000/- and as such a second appeal will definitely lie to the High Court,

    6. The next contention raised by Mr. Velusamy is that the rejection of the plaint is not for any of the grounds provided under Order 7 Rule U of the C.P.C If there is any rejection under this Order 7, Rule 11, then only the rejection will be construed as one coming under the definition of the decree contemplated under S. 2(2) of the C.P.C For this proposition, Mr. Velusamy cited Amba Shankar…(Plaintiff); v. Seoti…(Defendant).*(2). A single judge of the Allahabad High Court has held that the rejection of the plaint made for the reasons stated under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C only will come under the definition of the decree under S. 2(2) C.P.C The other cases cited by Mr. Velusamy such as C.R.P Nos. 1853 of 1970 and 2542 of 1970 cannot be taken as authority since those decisions followed the decision in Munusamy v. Chengalvaraya(3) which is not an authority for this proposition. Munuswamy v. Chengalvaraya is a case filed against an order refusing to review the judgment passed by the trial court. There is no difficulty in entertaining a civil revision petition against an order refusing to revise the judgment of the court below. The present case on hand is not one like that. In Seshadri v. Krishnaiah(4), Civil revision petition was entertained by this court, but the question as to whether a Civil Revision petition will lie or an appeal will lie against an order rejecting the plaint has not been discussed at all in this case. In Vaishnava College for Women v. Mrs. Alleyamma Thommas Ramanujam, J, has held that a revision is maintainable. That is not a case filed against a rejection of the plaint. Apart from that fact, that is a case in which no appeal will lie either directly or indirectly to the High Court. Chinna v. Govindaswami is a case arising under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, wherein Ramaprasada Rao, J., has stated that in the interest of justice High Courts have ample power to interfere with the orders passed under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act under S. 115 C.P.C Even the decision reported in K. Virupakshiah v. M. Shivalingaiah is not a case arising out of an order rejecting the plaint. But in any event, it does not support the case of the petitioner herein. Thus it is char from the abovesaid decisions, except the decision reported in Amba Shankar…(Plaintiff); v. Seoti…(Defendant).* the question as to whether a revision will lie or an appeal from an order rejecting the plaint has not been discussed at all.

    7. Mr. Venkataraman, the counsel appearing for the respondent cited Satyanarayanacharlu v. Ramalingam(5) wherein it has been held:

    “Where an order directing payment of additional court-fee in a suit is cot complied with and it is followed by an order rejecting the plaint, a revision against the later order would not be maintainable and the proper remedy is only by way of an appeal against the decree”. Another case cited Mr. Venkataraman is Harihar Bakish Singh v. Jagannath Singh(6) A bench of the Oudh Court has held—

    “On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the only grounds on which a court is authorised to reject a plaint are those given O. 7, R. 11 C.P.C and that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to reject this plaint on the grounds taken by him. With this contention we are not disposed to agree. The instances given in the rule referred to cannot be regarded as exhaustive or as limiting the powers of a court under S. 151 of the same code. We concur in the view taken by the Madras High Court in Lakshman Chetty v. Lakshmanan Chettiar(7) that a Court has jurisdiction in a proper case to dismiss a suit filed by the next friend of a minor on the ground that it is not in the Interests of the minor that the suit should be allowed to go on. The cases quoted in that ruling from “Simpsono on the Law of Infants” (pp. 471 to 473) show that this is also the law in England.” The next case cited by Mr. Venkataraman is Radhakrishnan v. Wall Md.(8) wherein also a Bench of the Hyderabad High Court has held that:

    “The instances given in O. 8, R. 11 cannot be regarded as extensive of all the cases in which a court can reject a plaint or as limiting the inherent powers of the court in respect thereof.”

    For the proposition that against the rejection of the plaint, only appeal lies, has been made clear in the decision reported in Lakshmanan v. Lakshmanan(9) and in Badri Nath v. State of Pepsu(10), Even reading S. 2(2), C.P.C it does not say the rejection of the plaint under O. 7, R. 11, C.P.C, on the other hand, it generally states that decree will include rejection of plaint. Thus it is clear both from the section and also the decisions cited above that only appeal will lie against the rejection of the plaint and it is not limited to such cases wherein the plaint was rejected for the reasons stated under O. 7, R. 11 C.P.C

    8. Thus it is clear that the order in question now is rejection of the plaint even though it cannot be construed as one coming under the reasons stated under O. 7, R. 11, C.P.C Nevertheless the remedy, if any, for the petitioner herein can only be by way of an appeal and not by a revision to this court. When there is a specific remedy provided and no harm will be caused to the petitioner herein by directing him to file an appeal instead of a revision in this court, I am of the view that this revision petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable.

    9. Mr. Veluswamy submits that the time will be against him if he goes by way of an appeal against the order rejecting the plaint. He can prefer an appeal with a petition to excuse the delay and I am sure any court will take into account the time taken by the petitioner in litigating the matter before a wrong court, in calculating the period of limitation and excusing the delay.

    10. In these circumstances, this civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs.

    V.C.S

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    R. Shanmughavelu Pillai v. R. Karuppanna Ambalam
    (Feb 25, 1975)