In Jaswant Singh and others vs. Parkash Kaur and anothe- (2018) 12 SCC 249, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
“Para 28: It is relevant to note that expression “proceedings” as referred to in explanation contains only an inclusive definition. What is explained in explanation is not exhaustive rather inclusive. Dismissal of an application Under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure in default, is an order passed in miscellaneous proceedings, which is expressly included in Section 141 Code of Civil Procedure explanation. But whether the application dated 21.08.2002 to recall the order dated 19.10.2001 is also a miscellaneous proceeding, covered by miscellaneous ‘proceedings’ under Section 141 Code of Civil Procedure. The answer has to be ‘yes’ thus, application dated 21.08.2002 is also a miscellaneous proceeding in which proceeding, the procedure prescribed in the Code for suits is to be followed.”
The above decisions relate to the Interlocutory Applications of other categories. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking to reject the I.A.Nos.193 and 194 of 2016. The provisions under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC deals with the rejection of plaint only. It does not deal with the rejection of the applications. There is no mandate under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, anywhere to apply these circumstances to miscellaneous applications and reject those applications. Generally, Interlocutory Applications are filed for certain reliefs during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, miscellaneous applications are required to be determined on merits. A jurisdiction to dismiss the suit has to be distinguished from jurisdiction to reject the Plaint. The mandatory provision contained in Rule 11 are intended for cases to see that vexatious litigation are not allowed to consume the time of the Court.
Revision of Order u/s 115 of CPC– High Court shall reverse only those order/s which have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.