# Brij Mohan Singh v. District Panchayat Raj Officer and others - **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 708 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-09-10 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37657 of 2002 - **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. R.K. Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brij-mohan-singh-v-district-panchayat-raj-officer-and-others-39987 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Civil Procedure Code- Order VIII Rule 11 (d)- If the suit is not maintainable and is barred under the statute, the proper course for the petitioner shall be to make an application before the civil judge for rejection of plaint. Held- (Para 4) It is clear from the aforesaid provision that if the suit is barred under any particular statute, it is open to the defendant to make application for rejection of the plaint. Since the petitioner is defendant in the suit, he shall be at liberty to make such application under Order VII Rule II (d), if he is so advised, before the Civil Judge concerned and in case such application is made it shall be disposed by the learned Civil Judge as early as possible after hearing the plaintiff and other defendants in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the case upon merit and the learned Civil Judge shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition which has been treated as an application under Article 227 of the Constitution stands dismissed subject to the observations made above. ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 of law in that behalf and not on likes or dislike of an individual officer howsoever high position he may be having. We are surprised to find such a finding from an officer of such a high rank. Just because a person has joined the police force, there can not be any compulsion upon him that he can not keep beard. Be that as it may, we feel that the representation made by writ petitioner should have been decided on the basis of merit and we accordingly set aside the rejection order dated 9.7.2002 passed by Director General Fire Services U.P. The Director General shall decide the matter afresh after hearing the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders recording reasons. 3. The order of rejection dated 9.7.2002 stands quashed. Both the Special appeal and the writ petition are allowed. The order passed by the learned single judge dated 29.8.2002 is set aside. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.9.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J. THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37657 of 2002 Brij Mohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus District Panchayat Raj Officer and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Murtuza Ali Sri S.C. Verma Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ran Vijay Singh S.C. Civil Procedure Code- Order VIII Rule 11 (d)- If the suit is not maintainable and is barred under the statute, the proper course for the petitioner shall be to make an application before the civil judge for rejection of plaint. Held- (Para 4) It is clear from the aforesaid provision that if the suit is barred under any particular statute, it is open to the defendant to make application for rejection of the plaint. Since the petitioner is defendant in the suit, he shall be at liberty to make such application under Order VII Rule II (d), if he is so advised, before the Civil Judge concerned and in case such application is made it shall be disposed by the learned Civil Judge as early as possible after hearing the plaintiff and other defendants in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the case upon merit and the learned Civil Judge shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition which has been treated as an application under Article 227 of the Constitution stands dismissed subject to the observations made above. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.) Present: Sri Murtuza Ali and Sri S.C. Verma learned counsels for the petitioner and Shri Ran Vijay Singh learned standing counsel for the respondents. 1. This petitioner first moved before the learned Single Judge as an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge felt that the application would lie under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the matter came up before us today. However, we find that the prayers made in the writ petition cannot apply to an application under Article 227 http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 3 All] Brij Mohan Singh V. District Panchayat Raj Officer and others 709 of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed in civil suit on the basis of which the Panchayat Raj Officer has passed the impugned order is not proper in view of the fact that the civil suit itself is not maintainable and barred under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 2. If the suit is not maintainable since it is barred under the specific statute, in our view there is adequate remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure itself and proper course for the petitioner shall be to make an application before the Civil Judge for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded to the view taken by us in the matter and has submitted the proper course in such circumstances is to make an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil. Procedure which is set out herein below: 3. 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 is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on 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 property valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: 4. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that if the suit is barred under any particular statute, it is open to the defendant to make application for rejection of the plaint. Since the petitioner is defendant in the suit, he shall be at liberty to make such application under Order VII Rule 11 (d), if he is so advised, before the Civil Judge concerned and in case such application is made it shall be disposed by the learned Civil Judge as early as possible after hearing the plaintiff and other defendants in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the case upon merit and the learned Civil Judge shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition which has been treated as an application under Article 227 of the Constitution stands dismissed subject to the observations made above. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.9.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11095 of 1994 Virendra Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The Additional Commissioner and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Ganga Prasad Sri Mahendra Narain Singh Sri Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: S.C.