Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J
Vimla Devi Nagar W/O Shri Radheshyam Nagar – Appellant
Versus
Krishan Avtar Nagar S/O Shri Radheshyam Nagar – Respondent
Order :
1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners defendant nos. 1 and 10 aggrieved from order dated 17.10.2022 in civil suit no. 498/2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (North) Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby an application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to instant revision petition are that plaintiff respondent no.1 has filed a civil suit for declaration of registered sale deed dated 10.12.1985 as void and ineffective to his rights and permanent injunction. The present petitioners have filed application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 9 and 151 of CPC on the ground that on the basis of pleadings made by plaintiff in the plaint, a civil suit is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 and same is not maintainable before the civil court. Further, an objection was raised that plaintiff has challenged registered sale deed dated 10.12.1985 after 37 years of execution, therefore, the suit is also barred by law of limitation. The petitioners have further raised an objection that suit is improperly valued and sufficient court fee is not paid. At last, locus of plaintiff to file civil suit inc
A suit challenging a sale deed filed after the limitation period is barred and must be dismissed, emphasizing the necessity of disclosing a valid cause of action and proper valuation.
The rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to be decided based on the averments in the plaint.
The court held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a full trial for resolution.
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 ruled that a plaint must disclose a cause of action to proceed, and dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 is only appropriate when the plaint clearly fails to do so.
A suit claiming rights in property cannot be dismissed at the threshold without a trial based on arguments of benami ownership as these require evidence to substantiate claims.
The court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
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
