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

2018 Supreme(MP) 929

J.K.MAHESHWARI
Rav Ajay Pratap Singh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Gurucharan Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : Shri. Abhishek Bindal, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Shri. Rajiv Jain, learned counsel

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the applicants/defendants have preferred this revision. On perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the trial Court rejected such application on the pretext that the objection as raised may be permitted to raise in the written statement and after framing issues then it can be decided.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion objection as raised by the defendants in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is required to be seen in the context of the pleadings of the plaint and adjudication of the objections by evidence be permitted to raise in written statement. However, it is the duty of the trial Court to decide the objections raised as per Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on merit either allowing the application or rejecting the same. But without considering the objections on merit rejected the application which is not permissible, therefore, the order impugned stands set aside, so far as, it relates to rejection of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

3. In view of aforesaid, this petition is hereby allowed in p

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