Back
SUJOY PAUL
Vipin Kumar Samaiya, S/o. Late Vimal Kumar Samaiya – Appellant
Versus
Varsha Samaiya, W/o. Shri Shobhit Samaiya – Respondent
ORDER :
Sujoy Paul, J.
This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 21-3-2023 whereby application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order XIV, Rule 5 of CPC was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for partition and mesne profit which was registered as RCS-27-A/2013. After completion of pleadings, the Court below framed issues on 10-12-2012. The defendant then filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint which was decided by the Court below on 7-2-2020 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter, petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order XIV, Rule 5 of CPC (annexure P/7) on 24-11-2022 and prayed for framing of two issues - (i) Whether plaintiff has properly valued his suit. (ii) Whether, suit filed by plaintiff is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction.
3. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate submits that the Court below has rejected the said application solely on the ground that there is no pleading/ foundation in this regard in the written statement. The additional issues so proposed by application dated 24-11-2022 are purely legal in nature and therefore, w
The court reinforced that additional issues cannot be framed without pleadings, emphasizing the necessity of a solid basis for claim and limited scope for interference under Article 227.
Documents not part of the pleadings and not on record cannot be considered in a civil suit, and the scope of interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited.
The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition against a trial court's order, finding no error in refusing to frame additional issues post-evidence completion.
The court clarified that under Article 227, supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, with no grounds found for interference in the trial court's decision regarding th....
Compliance with court directions, procedural propriety, and duty of the court to dispose of applications in a timely manner.
Against an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement, neither an appeal nor revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC lies.
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against non-appealable orders of Commercial Courts despite restrictions in the Commercial Courts Act, preserving the High Cou....
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
