Back
REKHA BORANA
Shyamsundar Tak – Appellant
Versus
Neeraj Chandak – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rekha Borana, J.
1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Appeal Decree No. 04/2022 (NCV No. 06/2022) vide which the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Original Suit No. 17/2022 (NCV No. 36/2022) has been reversed. The learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2022, proceeded on to allow the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by defendant no. 1-appellant and consequently, dismissed the suit as preferred by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for specific performance and permanent injunction. However, the first appellate Court proceeded on to reverse the said order and rejected the application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC as preferred by the defendant.
2. The plaintiff preferred the suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction with the following averments: Defendant No. 1 had entered into an agreement with plaintiff's grandmother - Triveni Devi for sale of plot no. 113-118 admeasuring 1230.66 sq. yards situated a
Civil courts can entertain specific performance suits between private parties without being barred by land acquisition laws, affirming jurisdictional authority in private disputes.
Civil suits challenging land acquisition are not maintainable as the Land Acquisition Act provides a complete code, and such suits are barred by limitation.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction to question land acquisition validity; only High Court and Supreme Court can entertain such pleas.
The reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiffs were not seeking any declaratory relief of title in respect of their entitlement to the suit lands, and therefore, the provisions of Section 34 of the Specifi....
Specific performance cannot be enforced against parties not privy to the original contract, and suits lacking a cause of action are subject to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The court ruled that a suit for specific performance was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2 CPC as the appellants were permitted to withdraw a prior suit and file a new one.
(1) There cannot be any challenge to a consent decree as stipulated under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of C.P.C.(2) Relief for specific performance can also be enforced against a person who is not a party to....
Mere plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC taken up by the petitioners as defendants in the trial Court was not with respect to filing of the suit on the same cause of action, but, Order II Rule 2 of CPC wa....
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
