JUDGMENT : 1. This court has put the parties to notice that the petition would be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Called for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner herein is challenging the order rejecting the petitioner’s appeal taking recourse to Rule 11 of Order VI of C.P.C. and in addition, Rule 39 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. 3. The respondent No.1 herein, on appearance in Appeal No. 15/2007, filed an application, purportedly under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. 4. The objection raised in said application was that the appellant has failed to comply with sub-rule (1) of Rule 1, of Order IV of C.P.C., and relying upon sub-rule(3) of the same rule it was contended that the proceedings were not ‘duly instituted’ and invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reject the appeal. 5. According to the respondent No.1, the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Though titled as an appeal, the proceedings before the School Tribunal are original proceedings as there is no trial court below it and it is a forum of first instance and hence, provision of Order VII Rule 11 came into play. 6. The said application was heard after appellant filed reply opposing the application. 7. The School Tribunal was not satisfied with the reply. The Tribunal found that admittedly, sub-rule (1) of rule of Order IV of C.P.C. was not complied with as the memo of appeal did not accompany one more copy. 8. The Tribunal further found that Rule 29 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 requires that the memo of appeal shall accompany 2 more copies, which compliance too was not done. 9. The Tribunal, therefore, recorded a finding in para.12 of the impugned order that due to non-compliance of these two provisions, the appeal was liable to be rejected and hence, passed the impugned order. 10. Proceedings reveal that the memo of appeal was accompanied by application for stay, list of documents and affidavit in support. The respondent No.1, who was contesting had appeared and filed the reply to the stay application. 11. 10. Proceedings reveal that the memo of appeal was accompanied by application for stay, list of documents and affidavit in support. The respondent No.1, who was contesting had appeared and filed the reply to the stay application. 11. The application, which has led to the impugned order does not reveal that the respondent was not served with the memo of appeal and accompanying documents, thereby precluding the respondent No.1 from reasonable opportunity in the matter of filing reply to appeal. It is also not shown that any such request was made. 12. Considering the provisions contained in Rule 11 of Order VII of C.P.C., it is seen that any of the eventualities referred to in clause (a) to (d) are not shown to have crept in through the application, which has led to the impugned order. 13. The application does not say that the appeal does not disclose any cause of action (clause (a)); or that the appeal is undervalued (clause (b)); or that it is insufficiently stamped (clause (c)); or that from the statements contained in the pleadings, the appeal is barred by limitation (clause (d)). 14. Referring to sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order IV of C.P.C, it is seen that sub-rule (3) as it stands even after amendment of 1999, reads as follows :- "The plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rules (1) and (2)." 15. The language employed in sub-rule (3) does not disclose the consequences of failure to comply sub-rule (1). Had the legislature intended to have the result of dismissal of suit or rejection of plaint, such language would have certainly or essentially appeared in the said sub-rule, or any provision thereafter. Consequences of non-compliance of rule (1) of Order IV are not even included in rule 11 of Order VI of C.P.C. as a ground for rejection of the plaint. 16. In this background the application which was moved before the Tribunal with ingenuity, became successful in persuading the Tribunal to rule in favour of respondent No.1. 17. Absence of rule to provide non-compliance with consequence of dismissal or rejection of suit is a conscious legislative omission, which cannot be externally supplanted by a judicial dictum. 18. 16. In this background the application which was moved before the Tribunal with ingenuity, became successful in persuading the Tribunal to rule in favour of respondent No.1. 17. Absence of rule to provide non-compliance with consequence of dismissal or rejection of suit is a conscious legislative omission, which cannot be externally supplanted by a judicial dictum. 18. In this background, this court is constrained to hold that the Tribunal fell prey to the trick played with ingenuity by the respondent No.1 through the objection subject matter. 19. The learned Member of the Tribunal, who may be normally coming from the judicial cadre of not below the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was not expected to fall prey to such tricky application. Justice was to be the dominating factor, which has been ignored by the learned member of the Tribunal. The ingenuity disclosed in the application was certainly lacking sincerity. If what has happened is in the category of falling prey, it is bad, and if it is not so, it is worse. 20. In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Tribunal shall hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs. Order accordingly.