Mohammed Saleem vs R.M.C.Travellers Inn (P) Ltd on 7 September, 2023
(vii) Temple of Thakur Shri Vs. Shri Kanhaiyalal and Others
reported in 2008 SCC online Raj 530
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.76 seconds)Documents citing
Temple Of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji vs Shri Kanhaiyalal And Ors. on 18 February, 2008
Tara Chand & Ors vs Mahendra Kumar & Anr on 22 February, 2013
debtor, viz., Mohani Devi and Madanlal were also designed
on some other pretexts to stall the execution proceedings
and these applications/objections also proved to be abortive
and the learned court below rejected them. The objections
submitted at the behest of the appellants purportedly under
Order 21 Rule 97 CPC are therefore nothing but a device to
prolong the execution proceedings, more particularly when
the appellants have not placed on record any material
whatsoever for holding any sort of enquiry. My this view is
clearly fortified from a pronouncement of this Court in case
of Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji Chhota
Bhandar Vs. Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors. [2008 (3) WLC
534]. The Court in the case mentioned to supra has
observed as under:
Ambalal vs Ram Chandra on 2 February, 2022
(15 of 25) [CW-12254/2019]
Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 , in which it was
categorically laid down that if on a meaningful reading
of the plaint, it manifestly appears to be vexatious
and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue, the Trial Court should exercise its power
under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC taking care to see that
the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled, since bogus
litigation ought to be shot down at the earliest stage.
This Court in case of Temple of Thakur Shri
Mathuradassji, Chhota Bhandar v. Shri Kanhaiyalal &
Ors., 2008(2) RLW 1390 has held to the effect that if
the suit is filed by abusing the process of the Court
and cannot be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of
CPC, then the Court is not helpless and can
accordingly invoke the powers under Section 151 of
CPC and can dismiss the suit under Section 151 of
CPC.
Keshav Chander Thakur & Anr. vs Krishan Chander & Ors. on 19 May, 2014
41. Similarly the Rajasthan High Court in the case reported as 2008 (1)
ILR (Raj) 619 Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji vs. Shri Kanhaiyalal &
Ors. in para 16 held as follows:-
Vidur Impex And Traders Pvt Ltd And Ors. vs Pradeep Kumar Khanna And Ors. on 28 June, 2017
51. The question as to whether Order VII Rule 11 exhausts the powers of
the Court to dismiss the suit/reject the plaint arose before a Single
Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Temple of Thakur Shri
Mathuradassji v. Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors.,73 wherein the appellant
temple and some persons acting on its behalf had filed petition, suit and
application, one after the other, in order to deny a party to the benefit of
his decree. The case pertained to land, wherein the owner sought to get
it vacated from the tenant/school, but the Temple and its associates
initially filed a PIL, then a suit and ultimately an application under
Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code to avoid the land from getting vacated
even after a compromise had been effected between the owner and the
tenant. In this background, the Trial Court had dismissed the suit after
holding the same as an abuse of the process of law. Similar arguments
were urged in respect of the limitations on the power of the Court to
dismiss a suit qua the power in Order VII Rule 11; the Single Judge
rejected the arguments and observed as follows:
Irmeet Singh Kohli & Ors vs Ashok Kumar Batra & Anr on 18 September, 2017
18. Similarly, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Temple of Thakur
CM(M) 1179/2015 Page 8 of 10
Shri Mathuradassji vs. Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors., 2008 (1) ILR (Raj) 619,
in para 16 held as follows:-
Rajasthan State Shriganganagar Sugar ... vs Ajeet Singh (2023/Rjjd/003615) on 29 March, 2023
In view of the ratio as laid down in the above mentioned
judgments and in view of overall facts of the case, this Court is of
the considered opinion that reliance of the learned Court below on
the orders/judgments passed by the revenue court cannot be
termed to be unwanted for. The same was definitely in purview of
jurisdiction of the Court under Order VII Rule 11 coupled with
Section 151 CPC.
Gagan Deep Dugal & Ors. vs Religare Housing Development Finance ... on 31 July, 2024
34. He submits that, therefore, for the same relief, the petitioners
have filed multiple petitions having failed to obtain any interim
protection in the earlier petitions. He submits that the petitioners
cannot maintain such repeated petitions for the same relief. He places
reliance on the judgements of this Court in Vidur Impex and Traders
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar Khanna & Ors. 2017 SCC
OnLine Del 8925; Jiya Rani v. Narinder Kumar Dhingra & Ors.
2018 SCC OnLine Del 12680; Shiju Jacob Varghese & Anr. v.
Tower Vision Ltd. & Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5728, of the High
Court of Bombay in SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Kara Mara
Shipping Co. Ltd. & Ors. 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 495, and of the
High Court of Rajasthan in Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji v.
Kanhaiyalal & Ors. 2008 SCC OnLine Raj 530.
Jiya Rani @ Jiya Joshi vs Narinder Kumar Dhingra & Ors on 29 November, 2018
41. Similarly the Rajasthan High Court in the case reported as
2008 (1) ILR (Raj) 619 Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji vs.
Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors. in para 16 held as follows:-
M.Jothi vs M.Vaideeswaran
(xv) Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji, Chhota Bhandar Vs.
Shri Kanhaiyalal and others, reported in (2008) SCC Online Raj 530;