Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN
Arun Kaushal – Appellant
Versus
Jang Bahadur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer is for setting aside order dated 10.07.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.
2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming that his father namely Som Nath Kaushal is missing since 11.10.2017. The General Power of Attorney dated 15.03.2011 executed by Som Nath Kaushal in favour of defendant No.1 and the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 acting as Power of Attorney of Som Nath Kaushal are result of fraud and are forged documents. Further prayer was for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating and transferring the property as described under the head-note of the plaint. Further defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC claiming that the suit was filed before the Court which has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the same as the properties are situated within the jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Courts at Rajpura and at Ambala and thus, Court at Patiala has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
3. Further it was claimed that Som Na
In order to decide whether suit is barred by any law, it is statement in plaint which will have to be construed. Defence made by defendant in suit must not be considered while deciding merits of appl....
plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds were fabricated and therefore, were void. Considering the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, it was held that sui....
A litigant cannot benefit from concealing material facts; res-judicata applies when the same issue has been previously adjudicated, and suits barred by limitation are not maintainable.
The plaint must disclose a cause of action, and the permissibility of oral averments contradicting a written document depends on the applicability of relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.
The principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of matters already decided, confirming that the earlier judgment is binding and the current suit is not maintainable.
Where khatedari rights are yet to be determined/declared, a party has to first approach Revenue Courts.
The court clarified that a non-executant must pay ad valorem court fees for declaring a sale deed void, capped at Rs.1,50,000 under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment.
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
