J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Mukund Bhavan Trust – Appellant
Versus
Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(R. Mahadevan, J.)
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the Defendant No.1 viz., Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and its trustees, against the Order dated 26th April 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in the Civil Revision Application No.904 of 2014, whereby the High Court dismissed the said application preferred by the appellants challenging the Order dated 29th April 2009 passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune2[Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”]. By the said order, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 19083[For short, “the CPC”] for rejection of plaint being barred by limitation.
3. The Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2009 against the appellants and the State of Maharashtra, inter alia for the following reliefs:
(b) to declare that other than the Plaintiff, no other person is entitled to deal with, alienate and create any third-party inter
Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.
D.Ramachandran v. R.V.Janakiraman
Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam
T. Arivanandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 [Para 11
I.T.C. Ltd. V. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal
Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 522 [Para 14
R.K. Mohd. Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab
Mohd. Noorul Hoda v. Bibi Raifunnisa
Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh
Satti Paradesi Samadhi & Pillayar Temple v. M. Sankuntala
Sajjan Sikaria v. Shakuntala Devi Mishra
Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 [Para 8.4
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives
Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. V. M.V. Sea Success I
(1) Rejection of plaint – When a document referred to in plaint, forms basis of plaint, it should be treated as a part of plaint – Court cannot look into written statement or documents filed by defen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is found to be manifestly vexatious and without merit, and does not disclose a....
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of cause of action and being barred by limitation if claims are based on prior known events.
A suit can be rejected if it is barred by limitation, and the limitation period begins when the right to sue first accrues, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
Rejection of plaint – Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring suits within period of limitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.