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

2007 Supreme(Del) 2135

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
MAHENDER KR. LAMBA – Appellant
Versus
SATENDER PRAKASH LAMBA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Mata, MANJUSHA WADHWA, SANJEEV NARULA

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH arguments were addressed by the parties on all the 3 captioned applications, counsel conceded that depending upon the decision in IA No. 5270/2005, other 2 applications be decided.

( 2 ) IA No. 5270/2005 has been filed by the defendant praying that the suit be dismissed as not maintainable. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of the Code of civil Procedure has been invoked.

( 3 ) 3 grounds have been urged while invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the code of Civil Procedure. The first is the unconditional withdrawal of CS (OS)No. 211/2003. The second ground urged is that in view of pendency of CS (OS)No. 2123/2003, second suit on the same cause is not maintainable. The 3rd plea is that the claim is barred by the limitation.

( 4 ) NEEDLESS to state, allegation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC requires the court to treat each and every averment made in the plaint to be correct. However, pleadings in the plaint have to be read meaningfully.

( 5 ) MAHENDER Kumar Lamba (Plaintiff), Satender Prakash Lamba (Defendant), Jatender Prakash Lamba and Jogender Kumar Lamba are related to each other.

( 6 ) THEY appeared to have inherited enough wealth from their ancestors evidenced by t

































































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