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

DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Vikrant – Appellant
Versus
Radhika – Respondent


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 Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant no.1 stating that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioner. Similar application under Order VII Rule 11 has also been filed on behalf of the defendant no.2 rais

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