Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Kashimasab, S/O Yakubasab Terdal – Appellant
Versus
Saidusab, S/O Maqaboolsab Terdal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenging trial court order (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on right to pre-emption (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of pre-emption claims (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. application of order vii rule 11 cpc (Para 10) |
| 5. rejection of civil revision petition (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 23.09.2024 which rejects the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint.
2. Heard Sri.Pavan B. Doddatti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Sourabh Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
3.1. Before embarking upon the consideration of the issue on its merit, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the protagonists of the lis. The petitioner No.1- Sri.Kashimasab is defendant No.1. The petitioner No.2-Sri.Akabarasab is defendant No.2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are plaintiff and defendant No.3, respectively. The relationship between the parti
The court held that pre-emption based on vicinage is unconstitutional, and disputes regarding pre-emption rights necessitate a full trial due to the involvement of mixed questions of law and fact.
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
