TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
Reshma Poswal – Appellant
Versus
Namrata Dwivedi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Petitioner is defendant No. 2 whereas the plaintiffs are respondents No. 1 to 5 and defendant No. 6 is the husband of respondent No. 1 and has been arraigned as defendant No. 1 in the suit whereas respondents No. 7 and 8 are defendants No. 4 and 5 in the suit.
2. Respondents No. 1 to 5 filed a suit for declaration that they alongwith respondent No. 6 constitute a joint Hindu family and the land detailed in the plaint a joint Hindu family anscestral and co-parcenary property and defendant No.1 being a Karta and manager of the property. A further declaration was sought to the effect that respondent No. 6 was not competent to sell the property without any legal necessity and therefore the sale deeds dated 08.01.2010, 05.01.2016, 26.05.2011 and 10.12.2015 were illegal, null and void and do not affect the right of the petitioner and are thus not binding upon him. However, at this stage, it needs to be mentioned that there was no prayer whatsoever for setting aside the sale deed.
3. The petitioner-defendant No. 2 contested the suit by filing written statement wherein a number of preliminary objections were raised, more particularly, to the effect that the
Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (2020) 16 SCC 601
I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 70
Makhan Singh (D) by LRs vs. Kulwant Singh AIR 2007 SC 1808
Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467
Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan (1986) 4 SCC 364
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163
Bloom Dekor Limited v. Subhash Himatlal Desai (1994) 6 SCC 322
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner (2004) 3 SCC 137
Sham Lal alias Kuldip v. Sanjeev Kumar (2009) 12 SCC 454
N. V. Srinivas Murthy v Mariyamma (dead) by proposed LRs AIR 2005 SC 2897
Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta (2007) 10 SCC 59
Shri K. Jayaram & Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (2021) 14 Scale 663
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as Rejection of plaint- Plaint shall be rejected, where suit appears from statement in plaint to be barred by any law, where it is not filed in duplicate.
Power conferred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a drastic one and conditions precedent to exercise such powers are stringent.
The court emphasized that questions of limitation and cause of action are mixed issues of law and fact best resolved at trial, not at the application stage.
Point of law: Rejection of plaint - Clever or ingenious drafting cannot mask the Court for consideration of am application seeking rejection of the plaint when the suit is barred by limitation on the....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.