Back
JAVED IQBAL WANI
Kishore Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ishar Dass – Respondent
ORDER (ORAL)
The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner herein for setting aside of order dated 03.06.2024 (hereinafter to be referred as the „Impugned Order ) passed by the court of 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the „Trial Court ) in case titled as “Ishar Dass vs. Kishore Kumar”.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition reveals that the respondent herein filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant petitioner herein praying therein that the defendant petitioner herein be restrained from forcibly evicting the plaintiff/respondent herein from the suit property being an immovable property covered under Khasra No. 26 min, Khata No. 130 ad Khewat No. 86 situated at Pacca Talab, Bahu Fort, Jammu.
3. During the pendency of the suit after the defendant petitioner herein entered appearance before the trial court, the defendant petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the premise that the plaintiff respondent herein has given wrong description of the suit property with an aim to encroach upon the adjacent house of the defendant petitioner her
(1) Rejection of plaint – Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction—Wrong description of suit property—Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, plaint cannot be rejected for wrong description of immovable property....
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based on alleged contradictions in the claims; it must be assessed as a whole to determine if it discloses a cause of action.
The court affirmed that only the plaint's averments are to be considered in an application under Order 7 Rule 11, ruling that the plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action and other objections ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the trial Court need not conduct a roving inquiry into the fact....
The grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be examined at the stage of defendant's evidence and go into the merits of the suit, which should be decided during the....
Mere plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC taken up by the petitioners as defendants in the trial Court was not with respect to filing of the suit on the same cause of action, but, Order II Rule 2 of CPC wa....
(1) It is plaint averment that is required to be primarily considered at stage of considering application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.(2) Plea with respect to Order II Rule 2 of CPC has to be e....
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
