Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.KALAIMATHI
B.Gopinath – Appellant
Versus
J.Neelavathi – Respondent
ORDER :
R. KALAIMATHI, J.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.5411 of 2019 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to set aside the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.5411 of 2019 as mentioned supra.
2. Heard Mr.S.Sadasharam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.S.Kiran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.3539 of 2019 against the present petitioner for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the property described in A-schedule and to pass preliminary decree directing the defendant to render accounts relating to the sale of B- Schedule property. In which, the present petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, wherein, the trial Court upon consideration, allowed the said application on the ground of (i) limitation as well as observed that (ii) there is a bar to seek for the relief under Section 34 of SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT and chose to allow the petition.
4. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a suit against the said Neela
The court ruled that a counter claim can proceed if a prior suit on the same issue was not finally decided, thus negating res-judicata.
The outer limit for filing a counter claim is the date of framing of issues, and a counter claim cannot be filed in respect of a cause of action that arose subsequent to the filing of the written sta....
The court affirmed that counter claims can be filed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, even after the written statement, as long as they comply with legal principles.
A counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure can arise from any right or claim against a plaintiff's claim without needing to relate to the same property.
Validity of petition seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC requires valid reasons and timely invocation.
A suit cannot proceed on the basis of unregistered sale deeds as they do not constitute valid evidence for proving title under the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act.
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
