Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
G.BASAVARAJA
Vinoda W/o Shahaji Patil – Appellant
Versus
Mallappa @ Malleshappa Fakkirappa Goudappanavar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cause of action lacks merit. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. revision petition not maintainable. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court’s order affirmed. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
1. This revision petition is against the order dated 24th April 2005 passed in OS No.467 of 2009 by the III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Dharwad (for short “the trial Court”).
2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Facts leading to this revision petition are that, the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been in possession of the Suit property under agreement of sale, dated 28th August, 1974 and puravani dated 30th September, 1974. On the basis of said agreement for sale, plaintiff filed suit OS No.51 of 1997 for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 20th August, 1974 and puravani dated 30th September, 1974. The matter was heard on merits and suit was partly decreed, directing the Executor of agreement for sale to refund the earnest money with interest at 6% per annum. Against the judgment and decree passed in OS No.51 of 1997, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in RA N
A plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) only if it fails to disclose a valid cause of action, especially in light of established precedent.
Injunction - Once possession is lawful, suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable, same cannot be thrown away at threshold in exercise of powers under provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code....
Issues of limitation in amendment applications for specific performance and the nature of claims in injunction suits are critical to the determination.
The Court emphasized the importance of triable issues and the respective claims and cause of action of the parties in determining the maintenance of the suit.
Limitation period for suits involving cancellation of sale deeds and declarations is a factual issue that requires proper examination, and prior suits do not preclude new claims if possession remains....
(1) It is plaint averment that is required to be primarily considered at stage of considering application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.(2) Plea with respect to Order II Rule 2 of CPC has to be e....
Mere plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC taken up by the petitioners as defendants in the trial Court was not with respect to filing of the suit on the same cause of action, but, Order II Rule 2 of CPC wa....
A plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 when limitation depends on disputed facts, requiring a full trial to establish cause of action.
A plaint must disclose a cause of action; rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC examines only plaint averments, not evidence.
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
