JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against an order passed by the Civil Judge First Class Mandsaur under the provisions of O. 7, R. 11, Civil P. C. 2. The appellants and the respondents had certain monetary transactions between them. Disputes arose in connection with these transactions and on 26-7-1953 they were by mutual agreement referred to arbitration. A reference was drawn up in writing and the disputes were entrusted to the arbitrators for their decision. It is alleged that the said arbitrators heard the parties and by their award, awarded to the appellants a sum of Rs. 5,775. 3. On 28-7-1953 the appellants filed the award in court purporting to do so under the provisions of S. 20, Arbitration Act. On the same day the respondents appeared in court and by their application in writing accepted the award and prayed for a decree being passed against them in terms thereof. 4. It appears that during the interval the office had raised an objection that the award was not on proper stamps. The petitioners were asked to pay duty and penalty and several opportunities were given to them, but they failed to avail of it. On 15-1-1954 the court ordered the award to be sent to the Collector for recovering proper duty and penalty thereon. The Collector then seems to have heard the parties and taken steps to recover the amount of duty and penalty. In the order sheet dated 2-8-1954 there is a reference to the Collectors letter in which he had promised to send the amount of duty and penalty to the court after it was collected. On 17-12-1954 the court refused to wait any further and directed the case to be filed. Perhaps it realised its mistake soon and by its order dated 25-4-55 again wrote to the Collector to take steps to recover the amount of duty and penalty and to send it to the court. On 9-7-1955 the court again passed the following order : (which purported to say that if the duty together with the penalty is not paid till 16-7-1955, the suit will be rejected.) 5. On 16-7-1955 the plaintiff did not pay the duty and penalty and the court therefore ordered the plaint to be rejected under the provisions of O. 7, R. 11. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred this appeal to the High Court. On 16-7-1955 the plaintiff did not pay the duty and penalty and the court therefore ordered the plaint to be rejected under the provisions of O. 7, R. 11. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred this appeal to the High Court. Order 7 Rule 11 empowers the court to dismiss a suit in the following cases : (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. None of these provisions has any application to the present case. The learned lower court has proceeded to reject the plaint under the provisions of O. 7, R. 11(c) but that rule obviously cannot be extended to this case. To reject a plaint under the provisions of O. 7, R. 11, Clause (c), it is necessary that the plaint itself should have been written upon paper insufficiently stamped and that is not so in the present case. The plaintiff had filed an application under the provisions of the Arbitration Act and it is not suggested that it did not bear proper stamps. The award which was found to be insufficiently stamped is not a plaint but is an adjudication of a tribunal selected by the parties. The trial Court had therefore no jurisdiction to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 because the necessary duty and penalty was not paid by the plaintiff. I am therefore of the opinion that the lower court has acted arbitrarily in applying the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 C. P. C. to this case and exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. 6. The award is not on the record of this case and has apparently been sent to the Collectors Office to recover duty and penalty. 6. The award is not on the record of this case and has apparently been sent to the Collectors Office to recover duty and penalty. Perhaps the machinery in Collectors office did not work properly and the court after waiting for about a couple of years passed the present order. The court was obviously wrong in doing this. Since the award had already been sent to the Collector the court should have requested the Collector to expedite the proceedings and return the award duly stamped. 7. The appeal is allowed and the order of the lower court is set aside and the case is remanded to the lower court for disposal according to law in the light of observations made in this judgment.