Back
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE
Avinash Tanu Govekar – Appellant
Versus
Anjani A. Govekar Wife of late Anant Govekar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.
1. Admit.
2. Heard Mr. Dinesh Naik with Ms. Shruthi Arabekar for the Petitioner and Mr. Ashwin D. Bhobe with Ms. Ashwini Bandekar for the Respondents.
3. The matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself with consent of the parties.
4. Mr. Dinesh Naik would submit that the plaint on the face of it is barred by limitation and also no clear right to sue for want of any actual cause of action. He submits that the plaint shows only illusory cause of action and thus it needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).
5. Mr. Naik would now submit that the suit is filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff would go to show that the Gift Deed mentioned therein is challenged which is of the year 1980. Similarly, survey records were promulgated somewhere in the year 1975 itself and there is no statement made in the plaint that there is any actual threat to the so-called claim of the Plaintiff. He submits that the plaint is filed for declaration of co- ownership for which a period of three years starts from the date of actual denial of right by the Defendants. He further submits that there is no such positive assertion ma
A plaint must disclose a clear cause of action and right to sue; mere adverse entries in revenue records do not suffice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue depends on the actual cause of action, and an illusory cause of action created by clever drafting in the plaint can lead to t....
A plaint must disclose a clear cause of action and cannot be based on clever drafting that creates an illusion of rights; if it is found to be vexatious or meritless, it should be dismissed under Ord....
A plaintiff's failure to seek explicit title declaration does not render the suit unmaintainable if sufficient evidence of ownership exists, especially when the trial is ongoing.
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.
The essential facts must be proven to obtain a decree, and the cause of action should be disclosed in the plaint in a manner justifiable in law.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of cause of action and being barred by limitation if claims are based on prior known events.
(1) Rejection of plaint – When a document referred to in plaint, forms basis of plaint, it should be treated as a part of plaint – Court cannot look into written statement or documents filed by defen....
powers under Section 84-C of the Act will have to be exercised within reasonable time. The question then would arise what would be the reasonable time for exercise of such powers and what would be it....
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
