Back
AMIT BANSAL
Murari Mirchandani – Appellant
Versus
Jatinder Sardna – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. - I.A. 15648/2014(of the defendant no.5 u/O-VII R-11 of CPC)
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of the defendant no.5 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of plaint.
2. Summons in the suit were issued on 21st April, 2014 to the defendants no.1 to 4 and they were restrained from alienating, encumbering, dealing in any manner whatsoever and parting with possession of property bearing no. S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') or any part thereof.
3. Subsequently, the present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, was filed on behalf of the defendant no.5. Notice in the application was issued on 22nd August, 2014. Pursuant thereto, reply has been filed on behalf of the non-applicant/plaintiff. Written submissions along with the judgments in support thereof have also been filed by the parties. Counsels for the parties were heard at length on 18th October, 2022, 27th October, 2022 and 3rd November, 2022 and the judgement was reserved.
PLEADINGS
4. The pleadings in the plaint relevant for deciding of the present application are set o
The court emphasized that the rejection of a plaint cannot be done in a piecemeal manner and must be rejected as a whole. The subsequent events of abatement/dismissal of the suit in Saket Court were ....
The court emphasized the importance of proving continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the need to disclose financial capacity to fulfill payment obligations.
The Court emphasized the importance of truthfulness and transparency in legal proceedings, and upheld the principle that an amendment to the plaint relates back to the date of the suit, allowing the ....
A plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it fails to disclose a clear cause of action or relies on clever drafting to create an illusory claim. In specific performance suits, the absence ....
A plaintiff who omits to seek specific performance in a suit filed on the same cause of action earlier and later withdraws that suit without court leave is precluded from claiming specific performanc....
The court ruled that valid sales transactions were established over mere loan claims, emphasizing that contracts concerning property require mutual agreement to rescind and are enforceable as agreed.
The court upheld the decree for specific performance, affirming the doctrine of lis pendens and ensuring the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract was duly recognized.
Contracts for specific performance are unenforceable when vendors lack title, and suits are barred by limitation if not filed within prescribed timeframes.
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff's failure to satisfy the mandatory statutory requirements of demonstrating continuous readiness and willingness to perform their obligations, combine....
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
