Full Text
Translation output
IN THE HIGH COURT OF I)ELHI AT NEW 1)ELHI
C.R.P. 89/20 10
RAVI KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr. Arjun Sihgh l3awa, Advocate.
C.R.P. 89/20 10
RAVI KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr. Arjun Sihgh l3awa, Advocate.
VERSUS
RAKESH KUMAR & ANR Respondents
Through None.
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
O R 1) E R
09.08.2011
Ak
1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
• The petitioners -- defendant's application under Order Vii Rule 11 filed by him in the suit filed against him by the respondents herein for a declaration that he has forged certain documents of title in respect of suit property and also for a decree of injunction restraining him from selling the property on the basis of those documents has been rejected by the learned trial Court. In the plaint the plaintiffs had averred that cause of action for the filing of the suit had arisen in December, 2007 when they had- come to know that the petitioner -- defendant was trying to sell the suit property without giving them their share in the same as they were also the legal heirs of the deceased owner of the same.
The petitioner --- defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint on the ground that no cause of action had accrued in favour of the plaintiffs inasmuch as the deceased owner Shri Attar Chand had already executed the disclaimer deed dated 2 1.3.2006 after receiving payment of rupees one lakh.
The learned trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that the plaint could not he rejected by looking into the documents upon which the defence of the peti oner - defendant was based as well as his written statement. It has also been
Eeltl in the impugned order that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action for filing of
C. R. P 8912010 page 1 o[2
0/
/0
2011:DHC:10172 the suit and further that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule
11 only the averments made in the plaint had to be considered.
1 do not find any perversity in the reasoning of the learned trial Court in the impugned order for rejecting the applicatioh under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, there is no scope of any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
40— r
P.K. BHASIN, J
AUGUST 09, 2011 nk
O R 1) E R
09.08.2011
Ak
1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
• The petitioners -- defendant's application under Order Vii Rule 11 filed by him in the suit filed against him by the respondents herein for a declaration that he has forged certain documents of title in respect of suit property and also for a decree of injunction restraining him from selling the property on the basis of those documents has been rejected by the learned trial Court. In the plaint the plaintiffs had averred that cause of action for the filing of the suit had arisen in December, 2007 when they had- come to know that the petitioner -- defendant was trying to sell the suit property without giving them their share in the same as they were also the legal heirs of the deceased owner of the same.
The petitioner --- defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint on the ground that no cause of action had accrued in favour of the plaintiffs inasmuch as the deceased owner Shri Attar Chand had already executed the disclaimer deed dated 2 1.3.2006 after receiving payment of rupees one lakh.
The learned trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that the plaint could not he rejected by looking into the documents upon which the defence of the peti oner - defendant was based as well as his written statement. It has also been
Eeltl in the impugned order that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action for filing of
C. R. P 8912010 page 1 o[2
0/
/0
2011:DHC:10172 the suit and further that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule
11 only the averments made in the plaint had to be considered.
1 do not find any perversity in the reasoning of the learned trial Court in the impugned order for rejecting the applicatioh under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, there is no scope of any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
40— r
P.K. BHASIN, J
AUGUST 09, 2011 nk
c.1LP. 8912010
2011:DHC:10172
2011:DHC:10172
JUDGMENT