Back
K. MURALI SHANKAR
Thangamarimuthu – Appellant
Versus
Subbammal – Respondent
ORDER :
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.No.2/2023 in O.S.No.2/2023, dated 08.09.2023, by the District Munsif Court, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.2 of 2023, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sattur, dismissing the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
2. The respondents, as plaintiffs have filed the above suit claiming declaration that the sale deed dated 24.09.2020, on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sattur executed by the first revision petitioner/first defendant in favour of the revision petitioners 2 to 8/defendants 2 to 8 as null and void and nonest in the eye of law. Pending suit, the revision petitioners have filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2023 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., for rejection of plaint on the ground that in view of the earlier suit in O.S.No.57 of 2021 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sattur, the present suit in O.S.No.2 of 2023 is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed their counter statement raising serio
A plaintiff must include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit; splitting claims without court permission is impermissible.
The petitioners can be permitted to withdraw the suit to file a fresh suit, and they are liable to satisfy the law of limitation while filing the fresh suit.
The High Court affirmed that suits filed under different causes of action are not barred by procedural rules, highlighting the need for trial when a triable issue exists.
Point of law : Execution petition – Obstruction petition – who can file – Held, Court is empowered to conduct an enquiry whether the obstruction petition filed by the said petitioner was legal or not....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to consider only the averments in the plaint while deciding whether a suit is barred by res judicata, as emphasized by the latest jud....
A court can deny amendment requests under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC if due diligence is lacking after trial commencement.
Revision under Art.227 allows interference only in cases of jurisdictional errors or patent perversities, which were not found here.
Plaint is rejected on the ground that there is no proper cause of action to entertain the suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC.”
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
