Bombay High Court Dismisses Civil Revision Application, Rules That Applicants Must File Revision Before Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court Under Section 34(4) of MRC Act Instead of Approaching High Court Under Section 115 CPC

Court’s Decision: The Bombay High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application filed by the applicants challenging the Small Causes Court’s order, which had rejected their plea under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for rejection of the plaint. The Court ruled that the appropriate remedy for the applicants is to file a revision before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control (MRC) Act, 1999, rather than approaching the High Court directly under Section 115 of the CPC.

Facts: The applicants sought to challenge an order passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The applicants had sought the rejection of the plaint filed by the respondents in a civil suit, arguing that it was not maintainable under the law. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the revision application, citing the availability of an alternate remedy under the MRC Act. The applicants argued that their rights would not be affected if their plea for rejection of the plaint was granted.

Issues:

• Whether the applicants could directly approach the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC without first filing a revision before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act.
• Whether the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC affects the substantive rights of the parties.

Petitioner’s Arguments: The applicants contended that the rejection of their plea under Order VII Rule 11(d) would not affect the substantive rights of the respondents. They argued that even if the plaint was rejected, the respondents could still seek relief by filing an application to recall the compromise decree, and therefore, the rejection of their plea would not result in significant harm.

Respondent’s Arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the applicants should have first approached the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act before coming to the High Court. They relied on the judgment of Jasraj Lalaji Oswal v. Raziya Mehboob Patel, wherein the High Court had held that revision applications challenging procedural orders should be filed under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act.

Analysis of the Law: The Court examined the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC and Section 34(4) of the MRC Act. It referred to earlier judgments, including the Full Bench decision in Bhartiben Shah v. Gracy Thomas, which emphasized that revisions under the Rent Act should be filed only in cases where substantive rights are affected. The Court noted that the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC does not result in a decree and, therefore, the appropriate remedy is to file a revision before the Appellate Bench.

Precedent Analysis: The Court referred to the Jasraj Lalaji Oswal case, where the High Court held that revision applications challenging procedural orders should be filed under the MRC Act and not directly under the CPC. The Court also cited Bhartiben Shah, which clarified the scope of revisions under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act.

Court’s Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC does not result in the dismissal of the suit and, therefore, does not affect the substantive rights of the parties. As such, the applicants should have first approached the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act. The Court found no reason to entertain the revision directly under Section 115 of the CPC and dismissed the application.

Conclusion: The Civil Revision Application was dismissed, with the Court directing the applicants to file a revision before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act. All questions raised in the application were expressly kept open for consideration by the Appellate Bench.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in Conspiracy and Murder Case, Citing Inadmissibility of Co-Accused’s Confessional Statement Against Applicant, Weakening Prosecution’s Case