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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1328

KARAMJIT SINGH
Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Puran Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Mehak Bedi, Advocate, for Mr. Vivek. K. Thakur, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside order dated 4.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kapurthala whereby an application filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint was allowed with the condition that the petitioner has to pay the ad-valorem Court fee within a period of one month in the Civil Suit titled Mohan Singh v. Puran Singh and others.

2. Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, inter alia submits that the petitioner was not executant of the impugned sale deeds and is in possession of the suit property and as such, is not required to pay ad-valorem Court fee as has been directed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order (Annexure P-4). So, prayer is made that the impugned order be set aside.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. It is settled position of law that for the purpose of application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only averments made in the plaint are to be taken into consideration. From the perusal of plaint (Annexure P-1), it could not be made

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