Back
GOUTAM BHADURI, N. K. CHANDRAVANSHI
Gagan Rathi S/o Shri Madan Lal Rathi – Appellant
Versus
Ramdas Agrawal (Died) Through Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Goutam Bhaduri, J.
1. Heard.
2. This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Raigarh on 19.3.2019 in Civil Suit B No.53/2016 whereby a decree of Rs.11,21,000/- has been passed in favour of the plaintiff.
3. The parties to the appeal i.e., the appellant and the respondent No.1 entered into an agreement on 15.1.2009 for purchase of certain land ad-measuring 39870 square feet situated at village Jagatpur, Patwari Halka No.14, Tahsil and District Raigarh for an amount of Rs. 4,21,00,000/-. Out of such sale consideration, an amount of Rs.11,21,000/- was paid as earnest money by the respondent No.1. When the sale could not materialize, the respondent No.1/plaintiff served a notice on 20.6.2009 and subsequent notice on 10.8.2009 which was replied by the defendant / appellants herein, but, eventually the agreement could not materialize and sometime in the year 2011, Ramdas Agrawal (respondent herein) filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Gagan Rathi and Pawan Agrawal (appellants). Subsequently, the said suit bearing Civil Suit No.44A / 2011 was returned by the learned trial Court invoking the provision under Order
Fresh suit for specific performance by registered firm after unregistered firm's suit dismissal is barred by Article 54 limitation if beyond three years from 1993 refusal; SLP leaving questions open ....
Subsequent suit barred under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC if on same cause of action as withdrawn prior suit, omitting reliefs without leave; plaint rejectable under Order VII Rule 11 if averments disclose....
The plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC prohibits a second suit for specific performance if based on the same cause of action previously omitted, and the suit is also barred by limitation under Art....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to apply, the prior proceeding must have been prosecuted with due diligence and good....
Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at threshold for limitation if pleadings disclose triable issues on mixed questions of law and fact regarding cause of action accrual and continu....
The trial court should have allowed the application for amendment and thereafter decided the issues regarding limitation after recording evidence. The trial court committed illegality in treating the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a civil suit involving mixed questions of law and fact, such as the determination of the period of l....
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
