S.Jothi, & Anr. vs N.T.Krishnamorrthy

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.385 of 2007 has been preferred impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 12.12.2006, made in I.A.No.153 of

2006 in O.S.No.8 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai. The said civil revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiff

under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.386 of 2007 has been preferred impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 12.12.2006, made in I.A.No.159 of

2006 in O.S.No.09 of 2006, on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai. The above said civil revision petition has been preferred

by the plaintiff under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The revision petitioners / plaintiffs have preferred the respective suits against the respondent / defendant herein for recovery of money on the

basis of the promissory notes. It is found that the respondent / defendant preferred the above said applications, which are under challenge in the

present civil revision petitions, under Order VII Rule 11(c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reject the plaints preferred by the revision

petitioners / plaintiffs. The said applications were resisted by the revision petitioners / plaintiffs. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival

contentions put forth by the respective parties, was pleased to allow the above said applications preferred by the respondent / defendant.

Impugning the same, the present civil revision petitions have come to be preferred.

As far as the merits involved in the matter, in my considered opinion, it is unnecessary to go into the same as the civil revision petitions could be

disposed of on another aspect.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent / defendant that inasmuch as the impugned orders had been passed in the

applications filed under Order VII Rule 11(c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to reject the plaints preferred by the petitioners /

plaintiffs and the same having come to be entertained by the Court below, according to him, as against the said impugned orders only appeals

would lie and hence, according to him, the revision petitions preferred by the revision petitioners / plaintiffs, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, are not maintainable and accordingly, on that score alone, it is stated that the civil revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners / plaintiffs did not dispute the above said fact as regards the maintainability of the civil

revision petitions as against the orders passed in the applications preferred under Order VII Rule 11(c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

However, he would contend that the present civil revision petitions having been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court

has got the vast and extensive superintending power over the Court below under the above said Article and hence, according to him, the civil

revision petitions are maintainable.

The fact remains that the above said civil revision petitions have been filed only under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not by

invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further seen that as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent / defendant, on a

perusal of the definition of the ""Decree"" as provided under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it can be seen that the definition of the

Decree"" shall be deemed to include the rejection of the plaint. It is, therefore, obvious that inasmuch as the orders passed in the applications

seeking to reject the plaints constitute decrees, as per the definition of the ""Decree"" outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, it is found that as

against such orders, only appeals would lie and not revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his above

contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent / defendant placed strong reliance upon the decisions reported in AIR 2003 MADRAS 146

[K.S.Geetha vs. Stanleybuck] and (2008) 4 MLJ 405 [S.Manoharan vs. T.Mayakkannan and Another]. A perusal of the above cited decisions

would go to show that revision as against the order of rejection of the plaint is not maintainable and only the appeal would lie as against such order.

That apart, as per the decision of the authority second referred to above, it is found that as against the order of rejection of the plaint passed under

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been held that the same being a decree in terms of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, even the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked to set aside the order rejecting the plaint and that

only an appeal would lie. In such view of the matter, it is found the civil revision petitions as such are not maintainable as per law. Equally, it is

found that even the invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be made to the matter as the same is also found to be not

applicable in such matters and therefore, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners / plaintiffs that the Court should

in the interest of justice invoke the jurisdiction provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as such cannot be accepted.

In the light of the position that the civil revision petitions are not maintainable, as already adverted to, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the

matter and they are left open.

In the light of the above position, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel for

the respondent touching upon on the merits of the claim of the respective parties are not referred to in these civil revision petitions.

Resultantly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.