Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[c] In case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (D) through LRs. & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 700], the question (viz. whether an application under Rule 10 of Order I would be maintainable after the Court rejected the application under Rule 4 of the Order XXII) arose in light of the fact that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 came to be filed sometime after the application under Rule 4 of Order 22 was dismissed. In the said case, the plaintiff filed suit in June 2008 and sought relief that the sale deed executed in March 1999 may be set aside. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.7 was not alive. The said fact was brought on record before the Court by means of report submitted by the process server.

[c] In case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (D) through LRs. & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 700], the question (viz. whether an application under Rule 10 of Order I would be maintainable after the Court rejected the application under Rule 4 of the Order XXII) arose in light of the fact that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 came to be filed sometime after the application under Rule 4 of Order 22 was dismissed. In the said case, the plaintiff filed suit in June 2008 and sought relief that the sale deed executed in March 1999 may be set aside. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.7 was not alive. The said fact was brought on record before the Court by means of report submitted by the process server.

[c] In case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (D) through LRs. & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 700], the question (viz. whether an application under Rule 10 of Order I would be maintainable after the Court rejected the application under Rule 4 of the Order XXII) arose in light of the fact that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 came to be filed sometime after the application under Rule 4 of Order 22 was dismissed. In the said case, the plaintiff filed suit in June 2008 and sought relief that the sale deed executed in March 1999 may be set aside. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.7 was not alive. The said fact was brought on record before the Court by means of report submitted by the process server.

[c] In case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (D) through LRs. & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 700], the question (viz. whether an application under Rule 10 of Order I would be maintainable after the Court rejected the application under Rule 4 of the Order XXII) arose in light of the fact that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 came to be filed sometime after the application under Rule 4 of Order 22 was dismissed. In the said case, the plaintiff filed suit in June 2008 and sought relief that the sale deed executed in March 1999 may be set aside. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.7 was not alive. The said fact was brought on record before the Court by means of report submitted by the process server.

[c] In case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (D) through LRs. & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 700], the question (viz. whether an application under Rule 10 of Order I would be maintainable after the Court rejected the application under Rule 4 of the Order XXII) arose in light of the fact that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 came to be filed sometime after the application under Rule 4 of Order 22 was dismissed. In the said case, the plaintiff filed suit in June 2008 and sought relief that the sale deed executed in March 1999 may be set aside. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.7 was not alive. The said fact was brought on record before the Court by means of report submitted by the process server.

[c] In case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (D) through LRs. & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 700], the question (viz. whether an application under Rule 10 of Order I would be maintainable after the Court rejected the application under Rule 4 of the Order XXII) arose in light of the fact that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 came to be filed sometime after the application under Rule 4 of Order 22 was dismissed. In the said case, the plaintiff filed suit in June 2008 and sought relief that the sale deed executed in March 1999 may be set aside. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.7 was not alive. The said fact was brought on record before the Court by means of report submitted by the process server.

[c] In case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (D) through LRs. & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 700], the question (viz. whether an application under Rule 10 of Order I would be maintainable after the Court rejected the application under Rule 4 of the Order XXII) arose in light of the fact that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 came to be filed sometime after the application under Rule 4 of Order 22 was dismissed. In the said case, the plaintiff filed suit in June 2008 and sought relief that the sale deed executed in March 1999 may be set aside. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.7 was not alive. The said fact was brought on record before the Court by means of report submitted by the process server.

[c] In case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (D) through LRs. & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 700], the question (viz. whether an application under Rule 10 of Order I would be maintainable after the Court rejected the application under Rule 4 of the Order XXII) arose in light of the fact that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 came to be filed sometime after the application under Rule 4 of Order 22 was dismissed. In the said case, the plaintiff filed suit in June 2008 and sought relief that the sale deed executed in March 1999 may be set aside. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.7 was not alive. The said fact was brought on record before the Court by means of report submitted by the process server.

[c] In case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (D) through LRs. & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 700], the question (viz. whether an application under Rule 10 of Order I would be maintainable after the Court rejected the application under Rule 4 of the Order XXII) arose in light of the fact that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 came to be filed sometime after the application under Rule 4 of Order 22 was dismissed. In the said case, the plaintiff filed suit in June 2008 and sought relief that the sale deed executed in March 1999 may be set aside. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.7 was not alive. The said fact was brought on record before the Court by means of report submitted by the process server.

[c] In case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (D) through LRs. & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 700], the question (viz. whether an application under Rule 10 of Order I would be maintainable after the Court rejected the application under Rule 4 of the Order XXII) arose in light of the fact that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 came to be filed sometime after the application under Rule 4 of Order 22 was dismissed. In the said case, the plaintiff filed suit in June 2008 and sought relief that the sale deed executed in March 1999 may be set aside. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.7 was not alive. The said fact was brought on record before the Court by means of report submitted by the process server.