Prem Kishore vs Brahm Prakash - 2023 Supreme(SC) 294

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 294

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. B. PARDIWALA
Prem Kishore – Appellant
Versus
Brahm Prakash – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohan Pandey, AOR M/S. Mukesh Kumar Singh And Co., AOR Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Jeetendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar Goyal, Adv. Ms. Kajal Rani, Adv. Mr. Kunwar Siddharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Chandrakant Sukumar Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Amita, Adv. Mr. Prashant Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sumit Chauhan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ajay Kumar Talesara, AOR Mr. Jamshed Bey, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Adv. Mr. Sarfaraz Karim, Adv. Mrs. Renu Bhandari Singhal, Adv. Mr. Mudit Talesara, Adv. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document does not explicitly state that civil courts are barred from exercising their jurisdiction. Instead, it discusses specific procedural provisions and legal principles related to the rejection of plaints under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the application of res judicata, and the conditions under which a suit or plaint can be dismissed or rejected. The document emphasizes that courts are to decide on the basis of the statements in the plaint alone when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d), and it clarifies the circumstances under which a suit may be barred by law or res judicata. However, it does not contain any language indicating that civil courts are altogether barred from trying suits or issues.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the original plaintiff (landlord) of an eviction petition filed under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the Act 1958’) and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 04.05.2010 in the Civil Revision Petition No. 1332 of 2002 by which the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the defendant (tenant) thereby rejecting the plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the ground that the eviction petition was barred by the principles of res judicata.

Factual Matrix

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summaried as under.

3. It is the case of the appellants that the respondents herein were inducted as tenants on 27.12.1987 by the father of the appellants in respect of the property bearing House No. 163 (Old No. 143) situated at Village Dhakka, Kingsway Camp, Delhi on monthly rent of Rs. 1050/- excluding the electricity, water and house tax. According to the appellants, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 294

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. B. PARDIWALAPrem Kishore – AppellantVersusBrahm Prakash – Respondent

Cases Referred (13)

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. B. PARDIWALA
Prem Kishore – Appellant
Versus
Brahm Prakash – Respondent