RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
Binay Krishna – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar – Respondent
1. Earlier, the petitioner was appearing in the matter in person but after understanding the complexity involved in the interpretation of the amendments brought in the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act, he has again appeared through counsel.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The revision application is directed against the order dated 19.5.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Biharsharif in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 by which the petition of the defendant petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
4. The aforesaid title suit had been filed by the Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties for specific performance of contract seeking a direction upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the properties described in Schedule-1 of the plaint and consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiffs based their case on an unregistered deed of Baybeyana (contract for sale) dated 19.11.2003. After appearing in the case, the defendant-petitioners filed an application on 27.2.2006 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to reject the plaint on the ground, inter alia, t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.