Chinnangi Konar vs Paramasivam and Another

Thanikkachalam, J.—This Revision has been preferred against the order rejecting the plaint by the Lower Court. The plaintiff filed the suit on

a promissory note. In the promissory note out of five stamps three stamps were removed. The suit was filed only against two of the persons who

executed the promissory note out of five persons. The Lower Court rejected the plaint stating that the promissory note is defective, after taking into

consideration the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 1A C.P.C. It is against that order the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff.

I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff, who submitted that the plaint cannot be rejected merely because the promissory note is defective.

However, the attention of this Court was drawn to a decision of this Court rendered in the case of R. Shanmughavelu Pillai v. Karuppanna

Amhalam (1975) 88 L.W. 740, wherein it is clearly held that against an order rejecting the plaint only an appeal will lie and not a revision. So also

in Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad and Others, , while considering the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the same conclusion has

been arrived by the Supreme Court. In view of the above said decisions the revision filed by the plaintiff- petitioner herein is not maintainable.

However, it is open to the petitioner herein to file an appeal against the order rejecting the plaint, with an application to condone the delay in filing

the appeal. While considering the petition for condonation of delay the Lower Court can also take into consideration the time spent by the

petitioner in approaching the wrong forum. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to

take back the papers filed in this court, in this revision so as to enable him to file an appeal as early as possible. No costs.