Back
KHATIM REZA
Captain Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Pramila Singh – Respondent
Khatim Reza, J.—Heard the petitioner, namely, Captain Rajesh Kumar (in person) and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. This civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 08.06.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 463 of 2015 by learned Sub-Judge-1, Patna, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the defendant/petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The petitioner is defendant no. 4 in Title Suit No. 463 of 2015 filed by the opposite party no. 1 for declaration of title and possession of the plaintiff with regard to the Schedule-II land and further for declaration that the said Schedule-II land is a part and parcel of the raiyati land purchased by the plaintiff along with defendant no. 5 and 6 through registered sale deed dated 12.06.1982 and further the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the D.C.L.R., Sadar Patna in Land Dispute Resolution Case No. 93 of 2011-12 against the plaintiff is illegal, unlawful without jurisdiction void and nullity in the eye of law and is not binding on the plaintiff and also sought temporary injunction against the defendants and they be restrained from demolishing the st
The court affirmed that a plaint must show a valid cause of action to proceed, and suppression of material facts alone does not justify dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
The court established that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 if it is barred by limitation, regardless of the merits of the case.
A plaint must be deemed to disclose a cause of action if the statements therein, taken as true, allow for a claim to proceed, regardless of subsequent merits, as defined under CPC.
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for failure to disclose a cause of action if new instances of trespass are claimed, necessitating a trial on the merits.
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
