Back
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
D. N. Bhagya – Appellant
Versus
D. A. Mallikarjuna – Respondent
ORDER :
(Hemant Chandangoudar, J.)
This petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed challenging the order dated 06th January, 2018 passed on IA.16 in Original Suit No.1 of 2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shidlaghatta, rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The respondents 1 to 6 herein have filed the suit in Original Suit No.1 of 2010 seeking the following reliefs:
(ii) To declare that the registered sale deed dated. 10.09.2007 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 which is registered in the office of Sub-Register, Siddlaghatta vide Document No.1566/2007-08 is binding on the plaintiffs as the same is collusive one and the defendant No 1 dose not derive any right, title, interest much less possession over the suit property and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs;
(iii) To restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful, lawful physical possession
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it fails to disclose a valid cause of action, particularly when previous court decisions negate the claims made.
The cause of action is a bundle of facts and cannot be decided at the preliminary stage of the suit.
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected at the initial stage if it demonstrates a cause of action, emphasizing the need for a full trial.
Issues of limitation and sale deed validity require full trial; defenses are not assessed at the preliminary dismissal stage under CPC.
The court may reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) for failing to disclose a cause of action, particularly when there is suppression of material facts, demonstrating the importance of the clean....
Point of law: Rejection of plaint - Clever or ingenious drafting cannot mask the Court for consideration of am application seeking rejection of the plaint when the suit is barred by limitation on the....
A prior ruling on permanent injunction does not prevent a subsequent suit for title or possession if the causes of action are distinct and the question of title was not conclusively decided.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
