Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (4.23 seconds)Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bishundeo Narain And Another vs Seogeni Rai And Jagernath on 4 May, 1951
18. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that some particulars
have been pleaded by the plaintiff and that it would not be for this Court
to assess merits of the matter, while adjudicating the application under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at this stage. For this, decision of Supreme
Court in Kamala v K.T. Eshwara SA & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 661, which
was also cited in Eldeco Housing & Industries Ltd. v Ashok Vidyarthi
& Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1612 (supra), is relied upon, in particular
para 22, which is extracted as under:
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors vs Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune ... on 30 January, 2006
17. However, in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. (supra), it is stated in para 12
(extracted below), specifically excepting out cases where pleadings
relied on in regard to misrepresentation, wilful default, influence, or of
the same nature, from situations where material facts are required to be
stated:
Rani Purnima Devi And Another vs Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev And Another on 22 August, 1961
In Dhani Ram (supra), the
Court relied upon its previous observations in Rani Purnima Debi
(supra).
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the
defendant in the written statement and
application for rejection of the plaint on the
merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR I.A. 5371/2024 in CS(OS) 252/2022 Page 12 of 23
Signing Date:08.04.2025
17:38:48
adverted to, or taken into
consideration. [Sopan Sukhdeo
Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137]
23.11. The test for exercising the power under
Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made
in the plaint are taken in entirety, in
conjunction with the documents relied upon,
would the same result in a decree being passed.
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
The plea that once issues are framed, the
matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled
by this Court in Azhar Hussain case [Azhar
Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315.
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I & Anr on 20 November, 2003
This test was laid down in Liverpool & London
S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I
[Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn.
Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512]
which reads as : (SCC p. 562, para 139)
"139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of
action or not is essentially a question of
fact. But whether it does or does not must
be found out from reading the plaint itself.
For the said purpose, the averments made
in the plaint in their entirety must be held to
be correct. The test is as to whether if the
averments made in the plaint are taken to
be correct in their entirety, a decree would
be passed."
Kamala & Ors vs K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors on 29 April, 2008
18. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that some particulars
have been pleaded by the plaintiff and that it would not be for this Court
to assess merits of the matter, while adjudicating the application under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at this stage. For this, decision of Supreme
Court in Kamala v K.T. Eshwara SA & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 661, which
was also cited in Eldeco Housing & Industries Ltd. v Ashok Vidyarthi
& Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1612 (supra), is relied upon, in particular
para 22, which is extracted as under: