Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Vikrant – Appellant
Versus
Radhika – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges dismissal of applications. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court's dismissal reasoning on prior suit. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. parameters for exercising article 227 jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. order dismissed without prejudice. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)
CM No.27511/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 548/2021
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 8th March, 2021 passed by the Additional District Judge-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the three separate applications filed on behalf of the defendants in the suit proceedings i.e. (i) under Section 10 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) by the petitioner/defendant no.1; (ii) under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by the petitioner/defendant no.1; and, (iii) under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by the defendant no.2, have been dismissed.
4. The petitioner and the respondent no.1 were married in 2012 and both were residing in the suit property till 16th February, 2014, when the respondent no.1 was compelled to move out of the said property. The application under Ord
The court clarified that under Article 227, supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, with no grounds found for interference in the trial court's decision regarding th....
All amendments necessary for determining the real issue in controversy between the parties must be allowed, and the fact that the amendment may be belated cannot be a ground to disallow the amendment....
The court affirmed that distinct issues in separate suits do not warrant a stay under Section 10 CPC, and no error was found in the trial court's dismissal of the application.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908 could be challenged under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and ....
Family settlements may not require registration if they do not create or confer any rights in property, maintaining the principle that suits should disclose a cause of action as per Order 7 Rule 11.
Against an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement, neither an appeal nor revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC lies.
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against non-appealable orders of Commercial Courts despite restrictions in the Commercial Courts Act, preserving the High Cou....
The scope of a status quo order is ambiguous and requires clear evidence for violations, as courts will not intervene without established proof of breach.
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
