Negotiable Instruments: Exhaustive Coverage by Adv Roma Bhagat. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

The Petitioner's Plea To Invalidate An Arbitrary Order And High Court Of J&k's Stand On Non-revisability Of Rejected Complaints

Shivani Negi ,
  06 June 2023       Share Bookmark

Court :
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (at Jammu)
Brief :

Citation :
CR No.23/2020 CM No. 1012/2020

Case title:

Mehvish Choudhary vs J        & K Bank & Anr.

Date of Order:

22nd May 2023




  • The petitioner challenges an illegal and arbitrary order, arguing for its invalidation. According to the Civil Procedure Code, certain orders, like the one issued under Order 7 Rule 11, are considered decrees despite not meeting all criteria. The High Court taking inspiration from SC has ruled that the rejection of a plaint cannot be revised.


  • Rule 11 of the CPC allows the court to reject a plaint if it is frivolous, vexatious, devoid of necessary particulars, or does not comply with the prescribed format. This means that the court finds the plaint defective and deems it unfit for further proceedings.


  • The petitioner filed a lawsuit including a mandatory injunction against the respondents. However the latter filed an application to reject the complaint based on Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The trial court after review dismissed the petitioner's lawsuit.
  • The impugned order is being challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that it is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. The suit was not hit by any provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the purpose of the application was only to delay the trial. 
  • The original documents of the testimonials of the petitioner have also been submitted in the form of documents before the Trial Court. According to him the court has aborted the trial at its prime stage only.
  • A declaration is always sought in cases of employment when the court concludes in favour of the plaintiff and consequential relief of injunction can be granted. 
  • That is the court has not even averred a single provision of law, that as to which section of Relief Act the Mandatory Injunction of this type is barred. This leaves the petitioner remediless against the arbitrary action of  Organizations like the J&K Bank  which is illegal as per settled law.
  • Finally, the learned trial court has not discussed any single judgment cited by the parties and has merely quoted the title and citations of them.


  • During his submissions, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Aseem Sawhney, restated the arguments and grounds mentioned in the petition.
  • Opposing the arguments put forth by the respondents' counsel, Mr. Sawhney requested a conversion of the revision petition into an appeal.


  • The respondents' counsel, Mr. R K Jain along with Mr. Pranav Jain, raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition.
  • They argued that an order issued under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), rejecting the plaint, qualifies as a decree under Section 2(2) of the CPC. Therefore, they contended that it is appealable under Section 96, in conjunction with Order 41 of the CPC.


  • Section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) defines a decree as the formal declaration that settles the rights of the parties involved and can be preliminary or final. It clarifies that an adjudication that does not meet the requirements outlined in it cannot be considered a decree. 
  • However, certain orders and determinations, such as an order issued under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, are deemed to be a decree by legal fiction, despite not meeting all the required criteria.
  • This is supported by the view of the Apex Court in the case of "Jagat Dhish Bhargava vs. Jalwahar Lal Bhargava" (1961 AIR SC 832). No revision can be filed against the rejection of a plaint, even if the trial court committed procedural irregularities.
  • Since the ruling rejecting the complaint challenged in the current petition was issued by a Sub-Judge and an appeal would be appropriate to a District Judge, the Civil Courts Act, Svt. 1977 prohibits the Court from using its authority to transform a revision petition into an appeal. 
  • The order of rejection of the plaint impugned in the petition was passed by a Sub-Judge, not a District Judge, and thus the submission of Mr. Sawhney cannot be accepted.
  • The preliminary objections raised by the counsel for the respondents succeeds and the petition is dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Shivani Negi?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Published in Others
Views : 557


Latest Judgments

More »