According to the learned Counsel, till date the receiver is in possession of the suit premises. The court can return the plaint to be presented to the proper court if it finds that it does not have jurisdiction in the suit. It is further stated that the second suit was filed being Title Suit No. While doing so, a specific finding was arrived at by the Civil Judge that respondent No. Respondent, purportedly on behalf of his alleged mentally infirm sister Rohini, filed a suit for declaration that a registered document executed by her was null and void. The appellant and his family and the respondents' father and his family were living together in House No.
After examining the matter in the light of the ratio decided in the above decisions, this Court comes to the conclusion that the observation made by the trial Court that the valuation of the suit shall be examined at the time of trial is not correct. This plaintiff has not filed any suit or petition in any Court or Tribunal against the defendant for the specific performance. In the year 1974, respondents' father played a fraud and filed two suits in the name of his sons respondents herein, bearing Suit No. On the issue of limitation the trial court noted that limitation is to be reckoned from the date of defendant No. He further submitted that the application has been allowed by reading one para in isolation and ignoring other relevant paras of the plaint which specifically deal with the date of knowledge of the fraudulent decree obtained by the respondent on the basis of which ownership rights in the property were claimed.
In my opinion, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of defendant No. It is made clear that except on the question of limitation, we have not gone into the merits of the claim made by both parties. Even if such point has a relevance, the principle of res judicata being the mix question of facts and law, it would not be proper for the court to reject the plaint on such score in this regard. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is guilty of forum shopping. The Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad while agreeing that there is a valid arbitration clause, rejected the plaint thereby leaving the parties to invoke the arbitration clause. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the appellant has approached this Court challenging the aforesaid orders of the courts below. For purposes of clause d the court should examine the entire plaint and the prayer clause should not be read in isolation. But the trial Court has observed that the question relating to valuation can be dealt with only at the stage of final adjudication of the suit. She was named Devika Mehta using the surname of Mr. Aggrieved thus, the Bank approached the High Court. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao, , decided on 24. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the time to file the suit on the basis of notice dated 31.
The petitioner has not been able to spell out as to what other legal remedy would be available to the plaintiff to agitate her rights other than by means of filing the present suit. In a suit filed by respondent No. In the circumstances mentioned above it is therefore be prayed that your honour be pleased to reject the plaint as provided for under the provision of order 7 rule 11 of cpc. Mishra as regards the applicability of the first or the second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act will have to be judged having regard to the aforementioned findings of fact. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. The Court stated that the plaint can only be rejected if from bare perusal of the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction it appears to be barred by law.
A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, willful default, undue influence or of the same nature. Drastic power of Rejection of plaint. For ends of justice this petition be allowed. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No. Hence, the present suit filed in July 2015 would be barred by limitation. The learned Counsel further submitted that though the lease was terminated in April, 1991, the plaintiff was not in a position to claim the possession on account of appointment of receiver in Suit No. Though, there is a reference to filing of suit by him in the year 2008, i.
Thereafter, according to the plaintiffs after obtaining the copy of the decree of specific performance passed in O. The issue of limitation normally is a mixed question of law and fact. Rule 10-B: 1 Where on an appeal against an order for the return of plaint, the Court hearing the appeal confirms such order, the Court of appeal may, if the plaintiff by an application so desires, while returning the plaint, direct plaintiff to file the plaint subject to Limitation Act, 1963 in the Court in which the suit should have been instituted, and fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is directed to be filed and when the date is so fixed, it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is filed to serve the defendant with the summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court in which the plaint is filed, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs. The address for the purposes of service of summons, notice etc. Hence when a suit is likely to fail on account of a formal defect or there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit, the court may grant permission to withdraw such suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit.
In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial. Since the value of the subject matter of the suit is for Rs. It is necessary for every plaint to contain the date when the cause of action arose. The name of the court would be sufficient. It is totally immaterial what has been stated in the written statement at the time of considering a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 C. Relief founded on separate grounds. Shri Satyanarayan Ji Mandir Dharmarth Turst, Post Sadulpur Disstt Churu, , decided on 5.