SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1754

M.VENUGOPAL
R. Perumal Naicker – Appellant
Versus
R. Sakrapani – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: No appearance.
For the Respondents:R1, V. Premkumar , Advocate. R 2 to R4, Given up.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The petitioner/first defendant filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227; court held it not maintainable and emphasized using Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before Article 227. [21001067020013][21001067020014] - Importance of raising objections under Order 7 Rule 11 (a–d) of CPC to reject plaint, rather than directly invoking Article 227. [21001067020011][21001067020013] - If main suit is at a stage (part heard) and limitations/pleadings are involved, parties may raise factual/legal pleas before the trial court; Supreme/High Court can supervise but should exercise care. [21001067020016][21001067020015] - Civil Revision Petition dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of the main suit within four months; main suit was at part heard stage. [21001067020018] - Plea of limitation under Article 56 of Limitation Act and Section 17 of the Contract Act discussed in context of maintaining/fixing the plaint; direct resort to Article 227 not appropriate. [21001067020006][21001067020011]

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


Judgment :-

1. The petitioner/first defendant has preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition, praying for issuance of an order by this Court to call for the records pertaining to the impugned plaint filed by the respondent in O.S.No. 322 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu and struck off the same.

2.It comes to be known that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No. 322 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, as against the revision petitioner/first defendant and other three defendants, praying for passing of a preliminary decree in cancelling the alleged deed of power fraudulently obtained by the first defendant in collusion with the fourth respondent by forging the plaintiff signatures purported to be a power of attorney deed in favour of the second defendant, dated 28.01.1997, bearing document No. 25/97; to cancel the impugned sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, dated 07.09.1997 bearing document No. 3288/1997; and to cancel the impugned sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, dated 14.01.1999 bearing docume




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top