SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Del) 16

VUENDER JAIN, VIJENDER JAIN
VIKAS THEATRES AND EXHIBITORS – Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.SUDHARKAR RAO, AJIT SINGH, Harish Malhotra, N.S.SISTANI

Vijender Jain, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of IA No. 11509/96, application under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint as well as IA No. 1036/97 under Section 11 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff. Mr. Sistani, learned counsel appearing for the defendant has contended that the suit is misconceived as well as pre-mature as no agreement as alleged in the plaint was entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff. He has further contended that the suit which has been filed on the basis of agreeme does not exist, the relief of possession sought for cannot be granted by this Court. The next submission of the learned counsel for the defendant is that the plaintiff has not claimed possession in the suit. Lastly Mr. Sistani has contended that no cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. Mr. Sistani has further contended that in view of the decision of this Court in Baljit Kaur Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd. 1997 VI AD (Delhi) 937, judgment for possession be not passed by this Court as there are disputed question of law and fact.

( 2 ) THE defendant filed the written s
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top