Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.16 seconds)

Kamala & Ors vs K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors on 29 April, 2008

However, the said judgment is of no use to the respondents in view of the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in the case Kamala vs K.T.Eshwara Sa (supra) and in case of Saleem Bhai and others (supra) laying down that only averments made in the plaint are required to be looked into for considering the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Whether the suit was filed misusing the process of law or not could not be decided in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11. The suit could also not be dismissed under S.151 on the ground of having been filed misusing the process of law, more particularly when there are disputed questions of facts and law involved in the case, which would require the evidence to be led by the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 203 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ashok Chauhan vs Amri Bai And Another on 3 May, 2010

The other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are also not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the case of Ashok Chauhan vs Smt. Amri Bai and Anr(supra), this court had returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the same was not rejected under Order VII Rule 11. It is needless to say that the issue whether the civil court has jurisdiction or not in respect of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff could be decided at the time of the trial of the suit, when both the parties will have opportunity to lead their respective evidence. Further, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. For rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) it should appear from the statements made in the plaint that the suit is barred under a particular law.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - R S Chauhan - Full Document
1