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

2005 Supreme(Guj) 644

SHITAL R.PATEL, R.S.GARG
HIMANSHU MADANLAL SHAH – Appellant
Versus
B. M. POOJARI – Respondent


R. S. GARG, J.

( 1 ) RULE. With consent of parties the matter is finally heard. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 7. 1. 2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 211 of 2000 by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Baroda, granting the respondents application under order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, observing that the suit is barred by limitation and rejecting the plaint, is before this Court with a submission that the Court below had no jurisdiction to grant the application filed under Rule 11 of Order VII because the provisions of Rule 11 were not applicable.

( 2 ) THE short facts necessary for decision of this appeal are that the plaintiff alleged that he entered into an agreement with the defendant for purchase of certain properties. It was alleged that the defendant refused to execute the Sale Deed, as such the plaintiff was required to obtain a decree from the Court for specific performance. It was also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had a cause of action in his favour and the suit was maintainable.

( 3 ) THE defendant after notice appeared before the Court and submitted that the alleged agreement entered into was entered in 3. 2. 1979. There was a flat ref
















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