Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Chhotanben D/O Bavamiya Kamaloddin ... vs Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar & 5 on 14 November, 2016
23. From the above law laid down by the Apex Court it is evident that the plaint as a whole is to be considered for ascertaining whether it discloses any cause of action or not. It is also apparent that the written statement and the documents submitted by the defendant are not to be examined at the stage of deciding Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application. It is also apparent that the veracity of the plaint averments are not to be examined at this stage. Also, the limitation for filing suit for cancellation of the sale deed is three years from the date of its knowledge. It is also apparent that limitation is mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be summarily decided, unless the plaint averments itself disclose beyond doubt that the relief claimed was barred by limitation. Also, if the plaintiff raises a triable issue, then the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold.
P.V. Guru Raj Reddy & Anr vs P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors on 13 February, 2015
24. I have considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) and Vishnu Vardhan (supra) which pertain to fraud committed upon the court in judicial proceedings, which is not the case in the instant suit.
Article 59 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007
The knowledge mentioned in the plaint cannot be termed as inadequate and incomplete as observed [Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 488] by the High Court. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, few lines or passages should not be read in isolation and the pleadings have to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. We are of the view that both the trial court as well as the High Court failed to advert to the relevant averments as stated in the plaint.''
7.1. From the aforesaid decision and even otherwise as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint.
Sri Biswanath Banik vs Sulanga Bose on 14 March, 2022
In the said decision, in para 21, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 68)
The Limitation Act, 1963
Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) ... on 9 July, 2020
Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002
(ii) Saleem Bhai & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (2003) 1 SCC 557