Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR
Sunita W/o Late Shri Hansraj Chaplot – Appellant
Versus
Subhashchandra Ranka S/o Shri Lalchandji Ranka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the agreement and disputes (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claims regarding legal non-compliance (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court’s reasoning on legal principles (Para 8 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. interpretation of relevant legal provisions (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. final ruling on the petitions (Para 16) |
ORDER :
1. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions involve a common question of law, the same are decided by this common order.
2. The brief facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed two suits, being Civil Original Suit No. 30/2016 (CIS No.75/2018) and Civil Original Suit No. 31/2016 (CIS No.76/2018), before the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nimbahera, Chittorgarh.
3. In Civil Original Suit No. 30/2016 (CIS No.75/2018), it was stated that the original defendant No.1, namely Hansraj Chaplot, and respondents/plaintiffs No.1 and 2 entered into an agreement to sell dated 10.07.2013 for the sale of a three-storied building known as “Chopda Wali Haveli” located in Nimbahera, Rajasthan. The total sale price of the property in question was disclosed to be Rs. 25,00,000/-. Against the total sale consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/-, the original defendant received an advance payment of Rs
Suits cannot be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC based on procedural deficiencies regarding cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,00,000/- if they disclose a valid cause of action.
The application stage under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is limited to examining the plaint and accompanying documents, and certain legal provisions may not be applicable at this stage.
An agreement to sell does not confer any interest in property, and a suit for injunction is not maintainable when title is disputed and the plaintiffs lack personal interest.
A suit is filed with ....
The court determined that applications under Order VII Rule 11 must allow parties to present evidence at trial, as disputed factual matters cannot be resolved at this stage.
The court upheld that issues involving mixed questions of fact and law merit a trial, and dismissed claims that a plaint was barred under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that the proceedings must exa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII, rule 11 CPC is drastic and must be exercised based on a meaningful reading of the plaint and the....
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
