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

1982 Supreme(Raj) 104

DWARKA PRASAD
Bhagwan Das – Appellant
Versus
Goswami Brijesh Kumarji – Respondent


Advocates:
Appearance :
B.N. Calla, for the Appellant
R.L. Maheshwari, for the Respondents

Judgment Dwarka Prasad, J.-In this revision petition, the only question which arises is with regard to the scope of Clause (a) of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, 2 Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, so far as it is relevant for the present case, reads as under:-“Order 7. Rule 11:-Rejection of plaint --The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : --

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) wherethe relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff , on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff , on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears fromthe statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

3. Theargument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the question as to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not for the purposes of Clause (a) of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC should be decided on the face of the averments made in the plaint. On the other hand the argument of the le














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