Back
RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Suresh Chand Amar – Appellant
Versus
Subhash Chand Amar And Others – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The primary legal principle established is the importance of examining the parties under Order 10 CPC before sending them to trial to clarify ambiguities and ensure proper adjudication of the case. The court emphasized that issues related to the admission or denial of pleadings should be decided prior to any application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be considered only after the application under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been decided, as this helps in removing ambiguities and clarifying material facts before trial (!) (!) .
The case involved a challenge to the order dismissing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, with the court noting that the trial court should have first decided the application under Order 10 CPC. The court directed that the pending application under Order 10 CPC be decided prior to proceeding with the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (!) (!) .
The court reiterated that the purpose of Order 10 CPC is to ascertain whether allegations in the pleadings are admitted or denied at the initial stage, which is crucial for proper case management and avoiding vexatious or ill-founded suits (!) .
The decision emphasized that if the pleadings are found to be cleverly drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action, the court should exercise its power under Order 10 CPC to clarify the issues before considering any rejection of the plaint (!) .
The court disposed of the revision petition with the direction that the trial court must decide the pending application under Order 10 CPC first, and only after that should the parties proceed with their respective legal remedies, including any application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the procedural hierarchy and the importance of clear pleadings and proper examination of parties at the initial stages to ensure justice and efficiency in civil proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.08.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 27.11.2015, following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that parties are closely related being descendants of Sham Lal. Properties were partitioned amongst the stakeholders by virtue of three partition instruments. Firstly it was done by way of registered partition dated 12.11.1959 and lastly by way of arbitral award dated 03.09.1977 which was ultimately made as a Rule of Court as well. After moving application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the petitioner, an application for admission and denial of documents was also moved asking the defendants specifically to make statement in the context of certified copies of documents attached with the application. Learned counsel relies upon Vikas Aggarwal Vs. Anubha , (2002) AIR SC 1796 to contend that powers in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC could have been exercised in a given situation.
Notice of moti
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
