Judgment : The above revision petition has been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, Salem District, dated 27. 1993 in unnumbered plaint O.S.No.... of 1993 where un-der the court below has chosen to reject the plaint without even numbering it. 2. The suit appears to have been filed for a decree declaring the decree passed in O.S.No.601 of 1974 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem on 112. 1980 in respect of the suit property as null and void, for declaring that the decree passed in the said suit on the date referred to above is unenforceable and not binding on the defendant in the said suit and restraining the defendant in the present suit from executing the decree passed in O.S.No.601 of 1974 in E.P.No.36of 1991 pending execution on the file of the court below. The court below, after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff came to the conclusion that the suit claim is barred under Art.59 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and consequently, the cause cannot be entertained before the court. 3. Mr.R.M.Krishna Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this Court vehemently contended that he is not concerned at this stage about the merits of the claim as to whether the suit claim could be said to have been barred by limitation and that his grievance at this stage is only limited to the question of the legality and propriety involved in the order of the court below in rejecting the plaint without disclosing the provision of law under which it has chosen to do so. It is the submission of the learned counsel further that unless the provision of law under which the plaint filed has been rejected is disclosed in the judgment or decree itself it leaves the question relating to the further revenue of relief for the petitioner in a nebulous state, in that the petitioner has been left in the lurch and not to know whether an appeal has to be filed or a revision has to be filed against the order of the court below rejecting the plaint. Learned counsel contends further that the irregular exercise of power in the case on hand sufficiently would justify the petitioner to have recourse to this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India and this Court shall exercise its jurisdiction to set right the irregularities committed by the court below in the exercise of its jurisdiction and ensure a proper exercise of power. 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the challenge to the order on the ground stated supra is not well merited. There can be no doubt over the position that wherever the courts below are found to commit any improprieties or grave irregularities in the exercise of its power, this Court has the jurisdiction authority to correct them in exercise of the powers under Art.227 of; the Constitution of India. The question, therefore, would be as to whether the procedure adopted by the court below could be said to amount to a grave dereliction of duty or patent irregularity in the procedure bordering on perversity warranting the interference of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioner has filed the suit indisputably for the relief of a declaration that a decree passed on 112. 1980 in O.S.No.601 of 1974 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem was null and void and unenforceable. On the face of the averments contained in the plaint and the relief sought for, the court below felt just and necessary to reject the plaint on the view that the claim is barred by limitation on account of Art.59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. A perusal of the judgment and the decretal order docs not leave any room for controversies or doubt that this is only a case of rejection of the plaint since even prior to the numbering of the plaint the proceedings have been rejected under the order under challenge. O.7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure cast an obligation on the court concerned to reject a suit filed which from the statements contained in the plaint appears to be barred by any law. It is this which apparently obliged the court below to reject the plaint on the very terms of the relief sought for with particular reference to the bar of limitation referred to the order. It is this which apparently obliged the court below to reject the plaint on the very terms of the relief sought for with particular reference to the bar of limitation referred to the order. The question therefore that arises for further consideration is as to whether the civil court is obliged to make a reference to the provision of law under which the order has been passed in the order itself. In my view, the non-mention of the provision which obliged the court below to reject the plaint would not vitiate the order or undermine the exercise of power made by the court below. The provisions of law contained in O.7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is only the reason for rejecting the order and not the power. The powers of the court to entertain or reject a plaint is inherent in the authority below being a civil court having inherent jurisdiction to decide any issue arising in the proceedings initiated before it. It is only statutory authorities created under any particular statute conferred with power to do a particular thing under a particular provision who have to specifically refer to the provision of law under which they are exercising any of their powers. For ordinary courts of law exercising original civil jurisdiction with indisputable powers to determine all or any of the issues arising in a proceeding instituted before it, there is no obligation cast on the court to specifically advert to the provision of law under which it has chosen to reject the plaint. The fact that the order of the court below under challenge is one of rejection of the plaint is itself sufficient indication of the provision of law and I do not see any justification for this Court to interfere with the order of the court below on this account that there is no specific reference to any provision of law as such. The revision, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. The revision, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. The dismissal of the revision shall not stand in the way of the petitioner invoking the appropriate avenue of remedies as are open to him in law and it is needless to point out also that the pendency of the proceedings in this Court can also be taken advantage of for excluding any period of limitation prescribed for enforcing such avenue of further remedies for a challenge on merits of the order of the court below.