Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2551

SUDESH BANSAL
Jai Hind Buildcon – Appellant
Versus
Heeralal Sharma – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Anita Aggarwal Assisted, Mr. Hemang Kumawat, for the Appellant
Mr. V L Mathur, Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma, for the Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the proper consideration of objections under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the mandatory notice requirements under Section 304 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act?

What is the correct approach to valuation and accrual/disclosure of cause of action at the stage of deciding an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC petition?

What is the impact of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act on interim relief objections raised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and can they be examined at that stage?

ORDER

1. This revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by Civil Judge, Kishangarh in Civil Suit No.89/2014 whereby and whereunder petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the impugned order as well as the plaint.

3. Copy of plaint has been provided to this Court during course of hearing of this revision petition.

4. By perusal of plaint, it reveals that respondents-plaintiffs have filed civil suit alleging creation of public nuisance by defendants by raising a construction of multi storey building. It has been averred that petitioners (defendant Nos.2 & 3) do not have any ownership rights/documents of suit property, however, the defendant No.1- Nagar Parishad (respondent No.5 herein) has accorded permission to raise construction. The plaint has been valued for the purpose of permanent injunction.

5. The following relief in the plaint has been prayed for:-

6. Petitioners (defendant Nos.2 & 3) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising following objections that:-

'(i) The plaint does not disclose a clear right to sue and cause of action to plaintiffs;

(ii) Plainti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2551

SUDESH BANSALJai Hind Buildcon – AppellantVersusHeeralal Sharma – Respondent

What is the proper consideration of objections under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the mandatory notice requirements under Section 304 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act?

What is the correct approach to valuation and accrual/disclosure of cause of action at the stage of deciding an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC petition?

What is the impact of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act on interim relief objections raised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and can they be examined at that stage?

Cases Referred (1)

SUDESH BANSAL
Jai Hind Buildcon – Appellant
Versus
Heeralal Sharma – Respondent