- (1.) Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6.1.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for rejection of the plaint.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction to challenge the order passed under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (for short the Act) imposing damages for non- payment of contribution in time for the period from June, 1993 to January, 2001.
(3.) Besides contesting the suit on merit an application was moved for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code on the plea that the suit as framed was not competent and was liable to be rejected. It was pleaded in the application that the suit was barred under sub-section (D) Order 7-1 as any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3), or sub-section (4), of Section 1, or Section 3, or sub- section (i) of Section 7-A, or Section 7-B (except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) or Section 7-C, or Section 14-B of the Act, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. It was also pleaded that when a specific remedy is available to the plaintiff the suit was not maintainable and therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected. It was also pleaded that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit as the plaintiff-respondent had a remedy of appeal before the Tribunal under Section 7(i) of the Act. Provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act were also invoked. Said application was contested on the plea that if the authorities acted against the statute or did not follow procedure prescribed by law/statute then the civil Court has every jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.;