Back
SATISH KUMAR SHARMA
SHAKUNTLA AGRAWAL – Appellant
Versus
MANISH GUPTA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case background. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners argue suit is not maintainable. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent counters with procedural objections. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's reasoning on legal standards. (Para 12 , 14 , 16) |
| 5. final directive to trial court regarding written statement. (Para 18) |
ORDER/JUDGMENT : – Shri V. K. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit Batham, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sumant Mishra, counsel for the respondent No. 1.
This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 25-9-2019 passed by learned XIV Civil Judge Class I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 11A of 2019, Manish Gupta vs. Smt. Shakuntala Agarwal and others, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE has been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available on record.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners Shri V. K. Bhardwaj, submits that on bare perusal of the plaint, undisputedly, the suit property was purchased by mother of the plaintiff who sold the same by registered sale deed to the petitioners. Thus, the suit property is to be taken
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : V. K. Bhardwaj, Rohit Batham For the Respondent : Sumant Mishra
Rejection of plaint – In absence of any bar contained in Section 14 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, suit plaint is not liable to be rejected as barred by law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to restrain a party from alienating properties during the pendency of a civil suit, based on the principles of prima facie ca....
The court held that a claim for property belonging to a joint Hindu family is not barred as benami under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act when purchased with family funds, requirin....
The court held that the rejection of the plaint was improper as the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the property did not qualify as benami under the exceptions provided in the Benami Transactions....
The court concluded that the issues of property nature and limitation are mixed law and fact, necessitating trial rather than dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
The rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to be decided based on the averments in the plaint.
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
