Rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold.= whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order VII rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial. At the stage of consideration of the application under Order VII rule 11 the stand of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant. Original Suit Nos. 71 and 72 of 2002 were filed by the plaintiffs (appellants herein) for declaration of title and possession. The case of the plaintiffs in both the suits were more or less similar. According to the plaintiffs as they were living abroad they had reposed trust and faith in defendants Nos.1 and 2 who are their close relatives (sister and brother-in-law of plaintiff No.1) to purchase immovable property in Hyderabad in the name of the plaintiff No.2. According to the plaintiffs, they had made funds available to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for the said purpose and had entirely relied on them. Both the suits were filed in July 2002 which is well within three years of the date of knowledge, as claimed by the plaintiffs, of the fact that the property had not been transferred in the name of plaintiff No.2 by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The aforesaid averments made in the plaint will have to be accepted as correct for the purposes of consideration of the application under Order VII rule 11 filed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. If that be so, the averments in the plaint would not disclose that either of the suits is barred by limitation so as to justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC.-2015 SC msklawreports

 Rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC is  a
drastic power conferred in the court to terminate  a  civil  action  at  the
threshold.=
whether it discloses a cause of action  or  whether  the
suit is barred under any law.  At the  stage  of  exercise  of  power  under
Order VII rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written  statement  or
in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial.  It  is
only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do  not  disclose  a  cause  of
action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under  any  law
the plaint can be rejected.  In all other situations, the claims  will  have
to be adjudicated in the course of the trial.
At  the  stage  of
consideration of the application under Order VII rule 11 the  stand  of  the
defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant.
 Original Suit  Nos.  71  and  72  of  2002  were  filed  by  the
plaintiffs (appellants herein) for  declaration  of  title  and  possession.
The case of the plaintiffs in both the suits  were  more  or  less  similar.
According to the plaintiffs as they were  living  abroad  they  had  reposed
trust and faith in defendants Nos.1 and 2  who  are  their  close  relatives
(sister  and  brother-in-law  of  plaintiff  No.1)  to  purchase   immovable
property in Hyderabad in the name of the plaintiff No.2.  According  to  the
plaintiffs, they had made funds available to the defendants  Nos.  1  and  2
for the said purpose and had entirely relied on them.
Both the suits were filed in July  2002  which  is  well  within
three years of the date of knowledge, as claimed by the plaintiffs,  of  the
fact that the property had not been transferred in  the  name  of  plaintiff
No.2 by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2.   
The aforesaid averments made  in  the
plaint  will  have  to  be  accepted  as  correct  for   the   purposes   of
consideration of the application under  Order  VII  rule  11  filed  by  the
defendants Nos. 1 and 2.  If that be so, the averments in the  plaint  would
not disclose that either of the suits is  barred  by  limitation  so  as  to
justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC.-2015 SC msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more