Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.R.P. 146/2011
OM PRAKASH Petitioner Tln'ough: Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate
C.R.P. 146/2011
OM PRAKASH Petitioner Tln'ough: Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
HAR KISHORE & ORS Respondents
Through: None
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
03.10.2011 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who is a defendant in a suit for possession in respect of the suit property instituted against him by the respondents herein. He moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. Though neither copy of the application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC nor copy of the plaint was filed at all but from the averments made in the revision petition it is clear that rejection of the plaint (was sought on the ground that petitioner himself was the owner of the suit property and respondents were claiming ownership on the basis of some forged relinquishment deed. The learned trial Court has rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by observing that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC did not specifically mention as to how the plaint deserved to be rejected.
I do not find any reason to interfere in this revision petition since the petitioner - defendant wants rejoinder of the plaint on the basis of his defence pleas and not be averments made in the plaint and therefore, the same is dismissed in limine.
P.K. BH OCTOBER 03, 2011 2011:DHC:9209
03.10.2011 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who is a defendant in a suit for possession in respect of the suit property instituted against him by the respondents herein. He moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. Though neither copy of the application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC nor copy of the plaint was filed at all but from the averments made in the revision petition it is clear that rejection of the plaint (was sought on the ground that petitioner himself was the owner of the suit property and respondents were claiming ownership on the basis of some forged relinquishment deed. The learned trial Court has rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by observing that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC did not specifically mention as to how the plaint deserved to be rejected.
I do not find any reason to interfere in this revision petition since the petitioner - defendant wants rejoinder of the plaint on the basis of his defence pleas and not be averments made in the plaint and therefore, the same is dismissed in limine.
P.K. BH OCTOBER 03, 2011 2011:DHC:9209
JUDGMENT