Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
Lakshmidevamma, W/O Late N. Lokanath – Appellant
Versus
N Aswathanarayana Gowda S/O Narayanappa – Respondent
ORDER :
V SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri.Rajesh Gowda, learned counsel for revision petitioners. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent.
2. Defendants Nos.1 to 5 in O.S.No.56/2019 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application vide I.A.No.6 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short).
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
A suit for specific enforcement of the contract of agreement to sell dated 17.12.1997 in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as suit property) came to be filed by the plaintiff:
“All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.92 (present No.92/P48), measuring 2-00 acres, assessed at Rs.4-00, situated at Mavahalli village, Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk, and the same is bounded on:
| Direction | Description |
|---|---|
| East | Land of Venkateshappa and Lakshmamma |
| West | Land of Dobi Muniyappa |
| North | Nayakarahalli Gadi |
| South | Land of Lakshminarayanappa |
4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C
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.
The court determined that applications under Order VII Rule 11 must allow parties to present evidence at trial, as disputed factual matters cannot be resolved at this stage.
A unilateral cancellation of a registered agreement of sale is invalid; the cause of action based on subsequent knowledge and payments keeps the suit within limitation.
(1) Rejection of plaint – Rejection of earlier suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not bar fresh suit on same cause of action provided right of action is not barred by law of limitation.(2) Reje....
The court ruled that issues of limitation and contractual validity arising from disputed facts cannot be decisively adjudicated at the stage of rejecting a plaint, necessitating a trial based on evid....
The issue of limitation for specific performance of a contract is a mixed question of fact and law, and the plaint cannot be rejected solely based on the averments in the plaint.
The court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and cancellation of sale deeds is barred by limitation if it is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 54 of the Limita....
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 requires strict adherence to conditions, and a claim disclosing some cause of action cannot be dismissed merely due to its perceived weakness.
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
