Back
DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI
Salma Begum – Appellant
Versus
Jubeda Khatun – Respondent
ORDER :
Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.
Heard on admission.
2. This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 16.02.2023 passed in Case No.6v/2022 by the First Upper District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G) whereby, the application preferred by the applicant/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC has been dismissed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for the specific performance of agreement to sale dated 15.07.2019 and the suit was filed on 01.07.2022. In the said suit, the applicant/defendants have moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, raising the objection that defendant No.1 along with Kausar Jahan and Aftab Alam had already entered into registered agreement and the same was in existence. Subsequently in a fraudulent manner, on 15.07.2019, an agreement was executed and the present suit was filed which was barred by law.
4. Learned trial Court considering the averments made in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has observed that the issue involved in the case is a matter of evidence and the fact whether any fraud has been committed or not can be determined only after recording
The court must only consider the plaint and accompanying documents under Order 7 Rule 11, without evaluating the merits of the case or the defendant's defense.
The court affirmed that a plaint must disclose a cause of action based solely on its averments, and issues of fraud can only be determined after evidence is presented.
The court affirmed that the rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 must solely consider the plaint's averments, and limitation is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence.
The court affirmed that a plaint cannot be rejected for lack of cause of action or limitation if no time limit for performance is specified, allowing oral agreements for immovable property.
The court ruled that a cause of action constitutes a bundle of facts which, if proven, entitles a party to maintain an action and that applications under Order VII Rule 11 must not consider the defen....
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 requires strict adherence to conditions, and a claim disclosing some cause of action cannot be dismissed merely due to its perceived weakness.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mere admission of the existence of a document is not sufficient to presume fraud, and the issue of fraud can be considered at the final stage ....
A plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 when limitation depends on disputed facts, requiring a full trial to establish cause of action.
(1) Rejection of plaint – Defence taken by defendant in written statement cannot be taken into consideration and plaint has to be read as a whole and application cannot be decided in context of few a....
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
