Back
A. S. SUPEHIA
Setubhai Dilipbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Parvejkhan Dilavarkhan Pathan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Dave waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The present Revision Application is filed under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1909 (C.P.C.) emanates from the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh.8 in Regular Civil Suit No.4131 of 2015, wherein and whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of plaint has been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :
3.1. The original plaintiffs i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 have instituted Regular Civil Suit No.4131 of 2015 before learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, against the present applicants and others.
3.2. In the aforesaid suit, it is case of the original plaintiffs that they are the heirs of deceased Dilavarkhan Pathan, who passed away on 21.05.2001. It is further the case of the original plaintiffs that without their consent, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein (Original defendant Nos.3 and 4, who happen to be moth
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the limitation period prescribed in the Limitation Act, particularly Articles 59 and 60, in setting aside a transfer of prope....
Sales of minor's property by guardian without court permission are voidable, requiring action within three years post-majority to avoid limitation issues.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is found to be manifestly vexatious and without merit, and does not disclose a....
The court has the authority to reject suits under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC if they are manifestly vexatious and grossly delayed, even in the absence of a plea of limitation.
A suit challenging a sale deed must be filed within the limitation period; failure to do so results in the suit being barred.
The court dismissed the appeals on the ground that the suits were barred by the law of limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, as the plaintiffs failed to file the suits within the prescri....
The court's decision emphasized that suits should not be permitted to circumvent the rigors of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC by clever drafting, and that the exercise of powers by the learned Trial Court....
The court ruled that issues of limitation and validity of a sale deed require evidence and cannot be resolved at the plaint rejection stage.
A perusal of the observations made indicates that the Court while laying down the above proposition has used the word ‘ordinarily’ and has not laid down that even in a case where the issue of limitat....
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
