CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Akshat Mittal – Appellant
Versus
Renu Mittal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
I.A. 2094/2022 (Under Order VII R 11 of CPC)
1. The instant application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 seeking rejection of the plaint.
2. In the captioned suit, the plaintiffs are seeking a decree of partition and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing no. 171, Chitra Vihar, Delhi – 110092 (hereinafter “suit property”).
3. The instant application is filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action for grant of permanent injunction and a decree for partition. In the application, it is averred that neither there are any relevant and material contentions in the suit, nor have the plaintiffs filed any document on record to support their allegations and premise on which the present suit is based. It is also contended that the plaintiffs have no locus to seek partition of the said property, which is a self-acquired property of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal, since none of the pl
A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. vs. A. P. Agencies
Additional CIT v. P.L. Karuppan Chettiar
Bloom Dekor Ltd. vs. Subhash Himatlal Desai
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur vs. Chander Sen
Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra
Veena G. Kamath W/o Late Shri N. Ganesh Kamath vs Ashwini Kamath W/o Shri Shuklambara - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2571: Categorized as positive or neutral. Describes a standard legal principle for granting temporary injunctions ("prima facie case... risk of irreparable loss and... balance of convenience favors the plaintiffs") with no keywords indicating negative treatment such as overruled, reversed, criticized, or questioned.
Sabita Rajesh Narang (Nee Sabita G. Raheja) vs Sandeep Gopal Raheja - 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 55: Categorized as positive or neutral. Clarifies a daughter's rights as coparcener ("may seek a share... but must substantiate claims with sufficient evidence") with no treatment indicators present.
Saleem Bhai VS State Of Maharashtra - 2003 1 Supreme 433: Categorized as positive or neutral. Establishes a procedural rule under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ("ought to be decided on the allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement... is irrelevant") emphasized by "VERY" (likely indicating strong affirmation), with no negative treatment keywords.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I VS Babubhai Mansukhbhai (Deceased) - 1975 0 Supreme(Guj) 148: Categorized as clarified or limited. States that Hindu Succession Act provisions "do not alter the character of inherited property in the hands of the son, emphasizing the continuity of the old Hindu law principles," which limits the Act's effect without negative treatment indicators.
Shrivallabhdas Modani VS Commissioner of Income-tax - 1981 0 Supreme(MP) 365: Categorized as clarified or limited. Notes that the Hindu Succession Act "has made a dent in the Hindu law about succession as it stood before," indicating partial change or limitation to prior law without keywords for overruling or reversal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.