Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S.
P.V.Alexander S/O. Pattara Varghese – Appellant
Versus
Mutturuthy Sree Bhuvaneswari Temple @ Karna Karna Temple, Kannadikkadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. analysis of jurisdiction and cause of action. (Para 1 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 22 , 23) |
| 2. purchase of property and prior legal actions. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments on the cause of action and previous suits. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. legal standards for rejecting plaints. (Para 12 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. restoration of the suit to trial. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
EASWARAN S., J.
1. Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), based on an application filed by the defendant? This appeal impugns the concurrent findings against the appellant, whereby the suit filed by him for injunction was rejected.”
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The plaintiff claims that he purchased the plaint A schedule property by a sale deed No.3815 of 2012 on 4.12.2012. The property that lies on the northern side of the plaint A schedule property belongs to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is a temple which is being administered by the 2nd defendant. The defendants 3 to 6 are the office bearers of the 2nd defendant and are in administration of the 1st defendant temple. According to the plaintiff, the respo
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
