Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surender Singh vs Ra on 10 February, 2012

CR 864 OF 2012                       1


    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


                                              CR 864 OF 2012
                                              Date of decision: 10.2.2012
Surender Singh



                                                             petitioner
                        vs
Ra, mehar and others


                                                             respondent

Present:-   Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate


M.M.S.BEDI, J.

The petitioner is defendant No.6 in a suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent Ram Mehar for declaration challenging the inquiry report dated 8.5.2010 and decision of the Board of Directors dated 27.7.2009, exonerating defendant No.6 ( petitioner). An application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the petitioner claiming that the plaint is liable to be dismissed on the principle of estoppel and for want of jurisdiction in view of existence of statutory provisions u/s 128 of the Haryana State Cooperative Societies act, 1984, has been dismissed.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of the plaint, which has been filed against 15 persons. The defendant No.6 -petitioner is contesting the claim of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 by taking up all the questions of law and fact. Seven legal preliminary objections have been raised by the defendant- petitioner in his written statement. The pleas raised by the petitioner are mixed questions of law and fact, which can be determined and adjudicated upon during trial on the basis of the material produced before the court. No CR 864 OF 2012 2 ground is made out for interfering in the order dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the petitioner.

Dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the application or this revision petition will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner- defendant No.6.

Nothing said in this order will prejudice any legal right of the petitioner either to claim framing of preliminary issues or to claim rights under Order 10 CPC or other provisions of law, beneficial to the petitioner.

February    9   , 2012                            (M.M.S.BEDI )
TSM                                                   JUDGE