Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2427 (RAJ)

Jamil Ahmed v. Tufel Ahmed

2006-08-04

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Aklera. 2. This revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Aklera passed in suit No. 43/04 on application. To understand the matter correctly it would be relevant to reproduce the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer dated 21.3.2004:- ^^odqyk; Qjhdsu dks lquk x;ka izfroknh ds izkFkZuk i= vkWMZj 7 :y 11 ij oknh dks lquk x;kA muds tokc ds lkFk duplicate copy of the plaint isk fd;k] fQj Hkh :i;s 70@& dksVZ ij oknh dk nkok esUVsuscy ekuk tkrk gS rkfd MqIyhdsV dkWih izLrqr ugha djus ds dkj.k rduhdh dkj.k ij nkok [kkfjt ugha gSA 3. By this revision petition the petitioner has prayed that the permission for filing duplicate copy of the plaint by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been given in violation of the provisions of the CPC and as such the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was made before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer because as per the provisions of Order 4 Rule 1(3) of CPC such a suit cannot be accepted as duly instituted. The trial Court did not dismiss the suit and rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Aggrieved against this order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer dated 21.3.2004 this revision petition has been made in the Board of Revenue. 3. Arguing in support of the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners is that there is no provision in CPC for accepting the duplicate copy of the plaint by levying cost. The order of trial Court dated 21.3.2004 is improper and erroneous and should be set aside. 4. Arguing against the petition the contention of he learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioner is that in the process of suit it is a very small and technical mistake that duplicate copy of suit was not presented and the order of learned S.D.O. is very much just and proper and it is in the interest of justice that instead of going into technicalities of small issues, he accepted the duplicate copy o the plaint by levying cost of Rs. 70/-. This is not a matter in which suit can be dismissed and application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be accepted. 70/-. This is not a matter in which suit can be dismissed and application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be accepted. It is not the intention of the legislature. He also argued that such small procedural defects can be rectified and the courts have jurisdiction and authority to rectify such mistakes. He also invited our attention to an authority of Honble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 2003 SC page 189. He also argued that it was highly improper on the part of the petitioners to present a petition for such a matter. He also argued that the petitioner is misusing the opportunity being given by law and also it was highly improper on the part of petitioner to expect for admission of such a revision petition by the Board of Revenue. The revision petition was admitted on flimsy grounds on 6.7.2005. The petitioner has tried to make "mole hill out of a mole". He also argued that in view of the facts and circumstances of this case this petition should be dismissed by levying cost which should be quantified worth Rs. 5,000/-. 5. Having heard both the parties, having perused the petition and the written reply given by the non-petitioners and having respectfully perused the authority of Honble Supreme Court of India, I come to the following conclusions: (i) That the order of learned S.D.O. is very much just, legal and proper in the given circumstances. This was the best possible order in the interest of justice. (ii) I am respectfully bound to follow the authority of Honble Supreme Court as referred above in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamilnadu vs. Union of India by Honble Justice Mr. B.N. Kripal, C.J.I. and Honble Justice Mr. Y.K. Sabarwal as reported in AIR 2003 SC page 189. As per this authority Honble Supreme Court has guided us in the following way: "(E) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O. 7 R. 11(e)(f)—Rejection of plaint—If not filed in duplicate or where plaintiff fails to comply with provisions of O. 7 R. 9—Automatic rejection of the plaint at the first instance is not contemplated by R. 11(e) or non-compliance as referred to in R. 11(f) of O. 7—Court should ordinarily give an opportunity for rectifying the defects, before rejecting the plaint". (iii) Having considered the circumstances of this case in respect of the above authority of Honble Supreme Court, it is proper to say that learned S.D.O. has very correctly taken a decision for rectifying the defect instead of rejecting the plaint. (iv) In the facts and circumstances of this case it would not be improper to accept the contention of learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioner No.1 that the petitioners have misused the process of law and wasted valuable time of the Board by preferring the revision petition in such circumstances. In view of the conclusions above, the revision petition is rejected with cost, the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer dated 21.3.2004 is upheld and I also deem it proper to levy a cost of Rs. 2000/- on the petitioners. The petitioners will pay this cost to the non-petitioners/plaintiffs before the trial Court. Pronounced.