SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Bom) 185

Z.A.HAQ
Pramod s/o Manoharrao Konge – Appellant
Versus
Shantaram Balkrushna Dhok – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Raju Dhoble, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri V.V. Bhangde, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri Raju Dhoble, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri V.V. Bhangde, Advocate for the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner/original plaintiff takes exception to the order passed by the trial Court by which the application (Exhibit No.27) filed by him is rejected. The plaintiff has filed the civil suit praying for decree for specific performance of contract and for other reliefs. In this civil suit, the defendant filed an application (Exhibit No.18) under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the plaint be rejected. Before this application (Exhibit No.18) is decided, the plaintiff filed an application (Exhibit No.22) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the plaint. As this application was not being considered, the plaintiff filed an application (Exhibit No.27) praying that the application (Exhibit No.22) filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure be decided before the application (Exhibit No.18) filed by the defendant is considered. The learned trial Judge has rejected the application (Exhibit No.27) by the impugned order.

4. The learned Advo










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top