SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(AP) 101

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
R. Raghunatha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
R. Ramakrishna Reddy – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:K.G. Krishna Murthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.V. Bhatt, Advocates.

Judgment :

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 19-8-2011 in I.A.No.52/2011 in O.S.No.5/2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

The petitioners are defendants in the above noted suit filed by the respondent for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The petitioners filed I.A.No.52/2011 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same does not disclose cause of action. The lower Court rejected the said application. Hence, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

At the hearing, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in the plaint, the petitioners have not disclosed which are ancestral properties and which are self-acquired properties and that in the absence of such details, the plaint has not satisfied the requirements of Order VII Rule 1(e) and also sub-rule 11(a) thereof. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in I.T.C. Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (1998 AIR SCW 237).





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top