Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Sandeep Singh S/o Late Hoshiyaar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Babita Yadav Spouse of Late Pradeep – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and initiating order details. (Para 1) |
| 2. maintainability of injunction suits lacking declaratory relief. (Para 2) |
| 3. parameters for reviewing plaint under order vii rule 11. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. final determination on jurisdictional validity of trial order. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
1. The present revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC has been preferred assailing the order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nawa City in Civil Suit No. 23/2026 whereby the application preferred by the defendants-petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC came to be rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit as framed is not maintainable inasmuch as despite serious dispute regarding title and rights over the suit property, the plaintiffs have merely sought the relief of perpetual and mandatory injunction without seeking declaration of their rights. It was contended that the plaintiffs themselves have pleaded existence of rival documents and competing claims and, therefore, in absence of a substantive declaratory relief, the plaint deserves rejection. It was further submitted that the dispute pertains to land
A suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable when the plaintiff asserts ownership and possession, even if the defendant disputes the title. The court cannot reject a plaint under Order VII Rule ....
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it discloses a valid cause of action, irrespective of claims of vexatiousness or absence of declaratory relief.
The court affirmed that only the plaint's averments are to be considered in an application under Order 7 Rule 11, ruling that the plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action and other objections ....
Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inappropriate for disputed facts requiring evidence at trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments of the plaint are to be considered, and the arguments raised by ....
Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over agricultural disputes already pending in Revenue Courts, affirming the exclusivity of jurisdiction in such matters.
(1) It is plaint averment that is required to be primarily considered at stage of considering application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.(2) Plea with respect to Order II Rule 2 of CPC has to be e....
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
