Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SAKTHIVEL
D.Deepak S/o.R.V.Durairaj – Appellant
Versus
Sumathi W/o. Varadhraj @ Sakthi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. aggrieved party's petition details (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiff's defense and counterarguments (Para 4) |
| 3. court's procedural observations (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. judgment conclusion (Para 11) |
ORDER :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the Fair and Decretal Order dated August 12, 2022 passed by 'the learned Subordinate Judge, Omalur’ ['Trial Court' for convenience] in I.A. No.2 of 2022 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of ‘the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’ (‘CPC’ for short) in O.S. No.48 of 2019, the Petitioner/sixth Defendant therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
2. Heard Mr.Shangar Murali, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner, Mr.B.Jawahar, learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent and Mr.M.Nanda Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
3. Mr.Shangar Murali, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would submit that the first respondent is the daughter of respondents 2 and 3. The first respondent instituted a Suit in O.S. No.48 of 2019 seeking partition and also declaration that the decree dated August 14, 2008 passed in O.S. No.48 of 2008 on
The court concluded that the issues of property nature and limitation are mixed law and fact, necessitating trial rather than dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
A plaintiff may withdraw a suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 if formal defects are established; however, courts have discretion to deny withdrawal if satisfactory reasons are not presented.
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed to facilitate justice when trial has not commenced and do not prejudice the opposing party.
The court emphasized that the present suit does not hit Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and there is a cause of action to file the present suit.
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be dismissed for lack of a cause of action if it provides sufficient information for adjudication, leaving the question of limitation to be determined during tria....
The judgment establishes the principle that the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC is limited to the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction, and doe....
Dismissal of Interlocutory Applications affirmed as documents sought were irrelevant and delay in proceedings does not justify reopening closed evidence.
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
