Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.28 seconds)
Smt. Reshma Poswal vs Smt. Namrata Dwivedi & Ors on 29 December, 2022 cites

T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977

Despite the same, he instituted the present suit in the year 2003. Even from the averments in the plaint, it appears that during these 22 years i.e. the period from 1981 till 2001/2003, the suit property was mortgaged by the appellant hereinoriginal defendant and the mortgage deed was executed by the defendant. Therefore, considering the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) and others, as stated above, and as the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1095 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh(Dead) on 13 March, 2019

7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to the facts of the case in hand and the averments in the plaint, we are of the opinion that both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the gift deed was executed by the original plaintiff himself along with his brother. The deed of gift was a registered gift deed. The execution of the gift deed is not disputed by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift and therefore the same is not ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2022 20:46:58 :::CIS 25 binding on him. However, it is required to be noted that for approximately 22 years, neither the plaintiff nor his .
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 17 - Cited by 177 - M R Shah - Full Document

I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997

In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [(1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2022 20:46:58 :::CIS 23 stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 509 - M J Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 Next