- (1.) WE have heard learned Advocate for the writ petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THIS instant writ petition has been filed for a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of plaint. We are surprised that such a relief is claimed through a writ petition, particularly when there is clear remedy under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Rule 11 of Order VII reads thus: "11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed in under valued, and the plaintiff, an being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requi site stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the state ment in the plaint to be barred by any law: Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or. supplying of the requisite stamp paper shall not be ex tended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp paper, as the c'ase may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refused to extend such-time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. " It is clear from Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which has been set out hereinbefore, that it is open to the defendant in the suit to take recourse to the procedure for rejection of the plaint in the event the petitioner-defendant is of the view that the plaint in the suit suffers from any of the infirmities mentioned in Order VII, Rules 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d ). The petitioner can always make an application in the said suit. There is no scope under Article 226 of the Constitution to pass-such an order quashing the plaint as prayed for by the petitioner and the writ petition, in our view, is not the proper remedy. The other prayer in the writ peti tion is that a writ in the nature of man damus be issued directing the Civil Court to hear the preliminary issue first. We are unable to accede to this prayer of the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner inasmuch as, we are of the view that the Civil Procedure Code provides for ade quate and proper remedy which should have been pursued by the writ petitioner instead of preferring this writ petition. In that view of the matter, we have no alterna tive but to dismiss this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the writ petitioner also contends that the suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that the authority of land acquisition has already held in favour of the writ petitioner. If that be so, it is open to the writ petitioner to raise the said point before the Civil Court. In the event, such an application is filed, it is expected that the Civil Court shall dis pose of the same expeditiously. The writ petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Petition dismissed. .;