Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a revision plea seeking to set aside the Additional Civil Judge’s order wherein the court allowed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that sought rejection of plaint in a summary suit.
The Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul ruled that in circumstances where there already is a remedy then it is not appropriate for the High Court to entertain the instant plea filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
In this case, the plaintiff had filed a summary suit seeking a grant of the decree to recover a certain sum.
However, the defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the petition does not come under the scope of the summary suit.
The court below allowed the defendant’s application which led to the instant plea.
At the outset, the High Court noted that a remedy of appeal u.s 96 CPC is provided against a decree or for an order rejecting the plaint.
Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP Group for Legal News Updates-Click to Join
As per the Bench, a decree is a formal expression of adjudication by a court wherein the parties’ rights are conclusively determined. The court further noted that the decree also includes an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
In this context, the court opined that impugned order of the Addtnl. Civil Judge is a decree as per Section 2(2) CPC therefore the plaintiff has the remedy of appeal u.s 96 CPC.
Observing thus, the court dismissed the instant revision plea.
Title: Nimrata Shergill & Anr versus Shop Owners Welfare Association
Case No.: CR 1218/2022