Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Hiraundi Bai Sahu, W/o Shri Mahesh Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Thanaru Ram Sahu, S/o Late Shri Kondaram Sahu – Respondent
ORDER :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are rustic villagers with limited means, who are barely able to manage their day-to-day livelihood, and on account of acute financial constraints they were unable to approach this Hon’ble Court within the prescribed period; it is further submitted that the applicants are not conversant with legal procedures and were unaware of the intricacies of judicial proceedings, and for these bona fide and unavoidable reasons, an unintentional delay of 303 days has occurred in filing the present revision, which is neither deliberate nor intentional but solely attributable to circumstances beyond their control.
3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 1/2025 is allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present revision has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned 10th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 223A/2023, whereby the application filed by the appl
The court held that applications for plaint rejection on grounds like limitation and res judicata necessitate detailed examination during trial; objections cannot be resolved solely from the plaint.
The rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC requires a focus solely on the averments in the plaint, not on the defendant's defenses or mixed questions of law and fact.
An application for plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only evaluates the plaint's contents without considering the defendant's defense. Res judicata principles need comprehensive analysis bey....
The principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of matters already decided, confirming that the earlier judgment is binding and the current suit is not maintainable.
The principle of res judicata cannot serve as a basis for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC; it must be framed as a preliminary issue in trial.
The dismissal of a prior suit for non-prosecution does not invoke res judicata against a subsequent suit; limitation and other defenses must be resolved during trial.
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without determining if it discloses a cause of action, especially when limitation is a mixed question of law and....
The trial Court's rejection of the plaint was erroneous as it misapplied procedural rules and denied the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case.
A litigant cannot benefit from concealing material facts; res-judicata applies when the same issue has been previously adjudicated, and suits barred by limitation are not maintainable.
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
