TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a revision was maintainable against the order relating to an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the Revisional Authority could itself finally allow the application under Order 7 Rule 11 or was bound to remit the matter for fresh consideration.
Issue (i): Whether a revision was maintainable against the order relating to an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Analysis: The governing position was examined with reference to the amended scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the earlier authorities cited before the Court. The refusal to reject a plaint was treated as giving rise to a revisional challenge in the circumstances of the case, and the earlier decision relied upon by the parties was held not to control the present matter in view of the later amendment and the facts involved.
Conclusion: The revision was held to be maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the Revisional Authority could itself finally allow the application under Order 7 Rule 11 or was bound to remit the matter for fresh consideration
Analysis: The Court followed the settled view that the Revisional Authority has only a limited role while examining an order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If it finds substance in the challenge, the proper course is to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the original court for fresh consideration rather than itself undertaking the final exercise of rejecting the plaint at the revisional stage. By passing the impugned order in the manner it did, the Revisional Authority was found to have travelled beyond its jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The Revisional Authority was held to have exceeded its jurisdiction, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh.
Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was set aside and the revision was restored for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: While exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in relation to an order under Order 7 Rule 11, the revisional court may correct jurisdictional illegality and remit the matter for fresh consideration, but it should not itself finally reject the plaint.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
