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

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1022

DEEPAK SIBAL
Sham Lal – Appellant
Versus
Bhupender Singh Goondli – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant.

ORDER

Deepak Sibal, J. (Oral). - The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar (for short - the Trial Court) dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC seeking therein the Trial Court to return respondent No.1's plaint on the ground that the Courts at Hisar lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the same.

3. The facts, in brief, which are required to be noticed for adjudicating upon the present petition are that respondent No.1 filed a suit at Hisar against the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 seeking therein recovery of Rs.44,02,500/- by creating charge and sale of the properties mentioned in the head note of his plaint. On being put to notice, before filing a written statement, the petitioner alongwith his co-defendants, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC seeking the Trial Court to return respondent No.1's plaint on the ground that no cause of action, as sought tobe projected through respondent No.1's suit, arose in Hisar.

4. Respondent No.1 filed a reply to the application whereby he stated that the petitio

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