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 1]

Chattisgarh High Court

Fanendra Bhushan Sahu vs Ku. Garima Sahu & Ors on 27 July, 2016

                                            1

                                                                                 NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       Civil Revision No.134 of 2014

       Fanendra Bhushan Sahu S/o Shri Chainu Ram Sahu, aged
       about 42 years, R/o B.S.P. Personal No.1416315,
       Department of C.C.M, M.M.S. 02, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai,
       P.S.-Bhilai, Tahsil and District-Durg (CG), Civil and Revenue
       District-Durg (CG)
                                                                      ---- Applicant
                                       Versus
1. Ku.Garima Sahu D/o Fanendra Bhushan Sahu, aged about 23
   years.
2. Bhumika Sahu D/o Fanendra Bhushan Sahu, aged about 21
   years.
     Both R/o Qtr No.3-A,, Road No.72, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil
     and District-Durg (CG)
                                                              ---- Non-applicants
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant : Mr.A.K.Prasad, Advocate For Non-applicant No.3 : Mr.Sameer Behar, P.L.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 27/07/2016

1. Suit filed by plaintiffs Ku.Garima Sahu and Bhumika Sahu against their father Fanendra Bhushan Sahu sought to be dismissed by the defendant/applicant Fanendra Bhushan Sahu under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC on the ground that suit is barred by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.

2. The trial Court by its impugned order rejected the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the 2 CPC.

3. Against which, the present civil revision has been filed.

4. After hearing learned countless for the applicant at length, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. However, the liberty is reserved to the applicant to raise such plea in his written statement before the trial Court. If such plea is raised by the applicant, the trial Court would do well and frame such issue.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the civil revision stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K Agrawal) Judge B/-