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

2007 Supreme(P&H) 1231

H.S.BHALLA
Sham Lal – Appellant
Versus
Sudesh Kumar – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chetan Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

H.S.Bhalla, J

1. The present petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2005 whereby on the application moved by the defendant-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner has been asked to deposit the court fee.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is an exclusive owner in possession of the various lands and consequently for declaration with the release deed dated 11.9.2003 alleged to have been executed by the him in favour of the defendant-respondents is illegal, null, void and ab initio.

3. As per the case of the petitioner, the averments made in the plaint clearly spells out that the main relief sought therein is that he is owner in possession of the suit land and the respondents have no right over the same. He has further challenged as a consequential relief of claim of the respondents on the basis of the release deed and mutation along with the relief and permanent injunction.

4. The respondents filed written statement and thereafter moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, for rejection of the plaint on the basis of claim that the petitioner is required to pay court fe













































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