Raising fresh set of objection under order 7 rule 11

Plaint can be rejected u/o 7 r 11 of cpc on limited grounds.

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 properly valued, but the plaint is returned 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;

¹[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

³[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9];

it seems form your query that your case can not be rejected u/o 7 r 11 of cpc.Discovery of new facts does not entitleyou to get rejected suit under the provision of order 7 rule 11 of cpcThere is no bar to file second or third application  but ground must be different.

Thanks you Bhartesh Ji

I will give you more details of the case for a better guidance from your end

A Case was filed  in Civil Court for recovery of Security Deposit by the tenant ( A partnership firm) from the Landlord. Brief Facts of the case are as under

There was a registered rent deed executed between the tenant and the landlord. The tenant vacated the premises prematurely. There was a dispute over the Security Deposit amount to be refunded by the Landlord. The tenant filed a recovery suit against the Landlord for refund of Security Deposit in the civil Court. This was objected to by the Landlord by an application under Order 7 Rule 11 in view of the Bar under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act  2001 (Section 18(i) & Section 29 reproduced below)

Section 18. Jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal.-(l) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in the areas to which this Act extends, only the Rent Tribunal and no civil court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to disputes between landlord and tenant and matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto, filed under the provisions of this Act:

Section 29. Act to have overriding effect.-The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other Law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any Law other than this Act

The said application was rejected by the Court and it held that the suit was maintainable in Civil Court

Please let me know Whether prima facie is it not the Rent Control Tribunal who alone has the jurisdiction in the above matter in view of Section 18(i) since the matter of Security Depositis a matter connected with & ancillary to the dispute between landlord and tenant. Can a review be filed in the matter before the same Civil Court?