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

2012 Supreme(Del) 1873

M.L.MEHTA
HAJI ABDUL LATIF – Appellant
Versus
AZIZUDDIN – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the petitioner: Mr. Shahid Ali, Adv.
For the respondent:Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv. for R2/NDMC.

JUDGMENT

M.L. MEHTA, J. :

1. This petition seeks assailing the order dated 25.11.2011 of CCJ, whereby the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, who were the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit, was dismissed.

2. The respondent No. 1 Azizuddin had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners (defendants No. 1 & 2) as also defendant No. 3 NDMC. In the said suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioners (defendant Nos. 1 & 2) for rejection of the plaint. The main premise of filing of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was that the suit was with regard to the property owned and possessed by the Delhi Waqf Board and as per Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application, observing that the action alleged by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was not against the Waqf Board, but against the individualistic actions on the part of the petitioners. It is this order of the Trial Judge, which is under challenge in the instant petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also the respondents and gone through the record





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