A civil revision challenging an Order VII Rule 11 order was held not maintainable.

The petitioners, who were plaintiffs in O.S. No. 32/2025 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, filed this civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC challenging the trial court’s order dated 14 August 2025 on respondent No. 19’s application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC

The High Court’s Registry raised an objection to the revision petition’s maintainability

1. Whether the civil revision petition challenging the order under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was maintainable

2. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to pursue an appropriate remedy and receive the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act

The petition invoked Section 115 CPC to challenge an order made under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC

The Court upheld the Registry’s maintainability objection and permitted the petitioners to pursue an appropriate petition; it also directed that they receive the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

The Court did not examine the merits of the trial court’s Order VII Rule 11(d) decision.

It confined itself to the Registry’s objection, upheld that objection, and left the petitioners to pursue an appropriate remedy within two weeks of receiving the order.

It further preserved their entitlement to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act

It allowed two weeks from receipt of the order to do so, extended the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, directed the Registry to return the documents while retaining photocopies, and closed any pending interlocutory applications