The appellant herein as plaintiff had presented a plaint before the District Court being the vacation court along with I.A.No.1763 of 2014 under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the C.P.C.') seeking leave for dispensing with the notice under Section 80(2) of the the C.P.C. on the defendants. Vide order dated 24.4.2014, the learned Additional District Judge who was functioning as the vacation court dismissed the said I.A. and rejected the plaint through the impugned order. 2. Aggrieved by the order on I.A., the appellant had preferred R.F.A. No.323 of 2014 before this Court. As the appellant could realise that the said R.F.A must fail on account of some formal defect, the said appeal was withdrawn with leave to file a fresh R.F.A, and the present appeal has been filed.
3. Even though the learned Additional District Judge was functioning as the vacation court, instead of passing a provisional order, the vacation court has chosen to pass a final order and rejected the plaint as such. It seems that the rejection of the plaint is per se illegal, improper and without jurisdiction. It seems that the learned Additional District Judge has taken a view that notice under Section 80(2) of the C.P.C. could not be dispensed with, and proceeded to dismiss the said I.A. Even in a case where the court is not satisfied that the relief claimed is not urgent or immediate, the court has to return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements. In such a circumstance, the court cannot exercise the power to reject the plaint. Even in such case, the vacation court could not have returned the plaint also as the vacation court was expected only to pass an order which is purely provisional in nature.
4. It seems that the rejection of the plaint was made by the court below without any jurisdiction and the same can be treated as nonest. Even though the present matter is filed as a RFA, this court is of the view that for the ends of justice, the powers conferred on this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India has to be exercised for undoing the injustice. The impugned order of rejection of plaint as well as the order in I.A. under Section 80(2) of the C.P.C. are treated as nonest and therefore, the plaint and I.A. would revive. The plaint and the I.As are restored. The learned Additional District Judge on getting this order shall forthwith transmit the entire records of the case to the concerned Munsiff's Court as the appellant has been running from pillar to post to get some relief. The concerned Munsiff's Court shall consider the matter as expeditiously as possible in order to render justice and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
R.F.A. is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
dl/-
B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE // True Copy //