Judgment This is a revision filed by the plaintiff against an order by the District Munsif of Ranipet, Sri R.N. Tatachariar, rejecting his plaint in the following circumstances. The plaint which I have called for and perused was filed in the first instance in the District Munsif’s Court, Arni, and transferred along with other plaints to the District Munsif of Ranipet for disposal. It was received by transfer in that Court on 17th October, 1953 and directed to be returned with some objections on 19th October, 1953. As the plaint was not taken back, the District Munsif passed an order rejecting it on 28th October, 1953. The objections had nothing to do with any deficit court-fee and wanted some other defects to be rectified. The petitioner’s advocate, it would appear, hearing of this rejection, filed a petition unfortunately under wrong sections of law, i.e., under Order 7, rule 11(c) and section 149, Civil Procedure Code, for restoration of this rejected plaint to file. The District Munsif, holding that Order 7, rule 11(c) did not apply and furthermore that he was not able even to exercise any jurisdiction under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, as there was no suit pending before him, dismissed this application. Order 7, rule 11(c) clearly does not apply. This provision of law requires a plaint to be rejected where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written on paper insufficiently stamped and when the plaintiff does not make good the deficiency within the time granted by the Court. In the present case,there have been merely some defects, which are quite outside the scope of Order 7, rule 11, which the plaintiff was called upon to rectify. The usual procedure in such cases is, that if a plaintiff or his advocate does not take the plaint back within the time fixed, some further time is given, and if the plaint is rejected, it can always be restored to file on a suitable application explaining the delay. There is in fact no provision of law under which a Court has to reject a plaint, as in cases under Order 7, rule 11(c) when the plaint is returned for rectification of defects other than deficit court-fee. This is obviously a case which the learned District Munsif should not have treated in so technical a manner. There is in fact no provision of law under which a Court has to reject a plaint, as in cases under Order 7, rule 11(c) when the plaint is returned for rectification of defects other than deficit court-fee. This is obviously a case which the learned District Munsif should not have treated in so technical a manner. His order declining to set aside the order rejecting the plaint, is set aside. The plaint will be restored to file, and returned to the advocate who filed it for compliance with the objections within one week of the date of return to him. No notice is necessary on this petition. K.S. ----- Petition allowed.