Back
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Meeta Agarwal D/o Shri Meenalal Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan -II, Jaipur (for short 'the learned court below') in Civil Suit No. 56/2020 (484/2012) (36/2008) CIS No. 1551/2014 titled as Meeta Agarwal v. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti and Ors. by which the application filed by the defendants respondents has been allowed and the plaint has been ordered to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for filing the same before the Competent Court.
2. Before deciding the controversy, it is necessary to mention the facts of the case. The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration, possession, damages, mandatory and permanent injunction with regard to the disputed property described in Para 1 of the plaint. It was stated in the plaint that the disputed property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Balram vide agreement dated 04.01.1992 and the possession of the same was handed over to the plaintiff by said Balram. On 15.06.1996, allotment letter was also transferred in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant. Thereafter, boundary
Point of Law : Objection as to local jurisdiction of a court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a court to try a case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper valuation of the suit and the court's pecuniary jurisdiction as per CPC Sections 6, 15, and 21(2).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the rules of procedure and jurisdiction, particularly in relation to the pecuniary jurisdiction and the court in whic....
Point of Law - By amendment in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of small causes court was increased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 Lakh.
The Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document....
The date of institution of a suit determines jurisdiction, and recent amendments to the Telangana Civil Courts Act apply prospectively, ensuring that earlier provisions govern pending cases.
Point of law: As per sub-Rule(2) to Rule 10 of Order VII of CPC on returning of a counter claim (plaint), the judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the part....
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
