Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)The Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009
Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002
Ltd. Vs.
Hede & Company reported in (2007) 5 SCC 614; Mayar H.K.
Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Owners & Parties; Vessel M.V. Fortune Express
and Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 100; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable
and Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. reported
in (2004) 3 SCC 137; Saleem Bhai & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557.
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2016 dt.03-09-2024
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
Ltd. Vs.
Hede & Company reported in (2007) 5 SCC 614; Mayar H.K.
Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Owners & Parties; Vessel M.V. Fortune Express
and Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 100; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable
and Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. reported
in (2004) 3 SCC 137; Saleem Bhai & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557.
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2016 dt.03-09-2024
Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Hede And Company on 15 May, 2007
Ltd. Vs.
Hede & Company reported in (2007) 5 SCC 614; Mayar H.K.
Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Owners & Parties; Vessel M.V. Fortune Express
and Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 100; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable
and Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. reported
in (2004) 3 SCC 137; Saleem Bhai & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557.
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2016 dt.03-09-2024
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
37. Since the learned trial court has not gone into the
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
T. Arivandandam (supra), wherein, the order deals in two parts.
The first part deals with Order VII Rule 11 and the second part
deals with Order X of the Civil Procedure Code, if illusion is
created.
Maheshwar Mandal & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 31 July, 2018
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 submitted that there is neither legal
and valid ground nor any valid ground is covered by any clause of
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence, there
is no substance. It is further contended that title of the plaintiff and
her brother could not be decided by the writ court or through
B.L.T. Act. The title of the party could only be decided by the civil
court. It has been held by this Court in the case of Maheshwar
Mandal & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2014) 3
PLJR 281 that the D.C.L.R. or any authority under the Bihar Land
Dispute Resolution Act shall have no jurisdiction to assume the
jurisdiction of civil court of competent jurisdiction nor can have
the right to decide the question of title which is the exclusive
jurisdiction of civil court. It is also settled principle of law that
Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code does not permit
consideration of any defence of the defendants rather it is to be
decided on the averments made in the plaint alone and that those
Patna High Court C.R. No.133 of 2016 dt.03-09-2024
13/25
averments will have to be assumed to be correct. The plaintiff
claimed his right on the basis of registered sale deed executed on
12.06.1982. The claim of the plaintiff has to be decided on the
basis of evidence and materials on record.
Section 4 in The Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) ... on 9 July, 2020
24. The scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of
Civil Procedure has been explained in various decisions and the
legal principles deducible. The material to be considered for
rejecting the plaint has been dealt with in the case of Dahiben vs.
Arvind Bhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in (2020) SCC
ONLINE 563. The Apex court has settled the principle in para
12.6 & 12.7 which reads as under:-
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I & Anr on 20 November, 2003
25. The test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P.
& I Assn. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr. reported in (2007) 5
SCC 614, which reads as under:-