Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Krishan Kakkar – Appellant
Versus
Kiran Chander – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to cpc orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of property dispute (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. application of section 53a argued (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. conditions for applying section 53a (Para 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. court's jurisdiction limits under cpc (Para 8 , 9 , 19) |
| 6. confirmation of previous orders (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. compliance with document submission (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. disposal of petition (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails orders dated 8th July, 2021 and 6th May, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in CS 412/2021 (Kiran Chander v. Krishan Kakkar).
2. The order dated 8th July, 2021 rejects an application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in CS 412/2021, seeking dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Towards the conclusion of the impugned order dated 8th July, 2021, the learned ADJ directes the respondent (as the plaintiff in CS 412/2021) to file two documents. The subsequent order dated 6th May, 2022, passed by the learned ADJ, which constitutes the second order under challenge in these proceedings, disp
A court assessing an application under Order VII Rule 11 is confined to the plaint and its documents, not external assertions or documents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of examination under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the party's prerogative to choose the documents to be brought on record.
(1) Rejection of plaint – Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring other relevant parts of plaint is impermissible – Court has to go th....
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided based solely on the averments in the plaint. The court emphasized that such issues require evidence and should be ....
It is settled law that Court has to look into contents of plaint while invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and it cannot look into defense.
The court held that procedural unfairness due to technical irregularities can justify allowing the filing of Written Statements after delays, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural str....
Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., which is extracted as adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of property.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by limitation, emphasizing the need for substantive over procedural assessment.
Suit barred due to lack of objection against record of rights; civil court jurisdiction excluded under specific statutory provisions.
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
