Full Text
Translation output
A-46
% 05.08.2011
Present: Mr. L.K. Singh and Mr. Sonal Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM(M) No. 14492/2011 (exemption) in CM (M) NO. 897/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM (M) No. 897/2011 & CM No.14491/2011 (for stay)
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
% 05.08.2011
Present: Mr. L.K. Singh and Mr. Sonal Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM(M) No. 14492/2011 (exemption) in CM (M) NO. 897/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM (M) No. 897/2011 & CM No.14491/2011 (for stay)
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
257.201 1 vide which the application filed by the defendant under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed with costs of Rs.
2,000/-; court had noted that this was a delaying tactic on the part of the defendant.
Record shows that present suit is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. Contention of the plaintiff as is clear from paragraph 3 of the suit is that she was in continuous possession of the said plot; defendant was creating a hindrance in her property; prayer was made that a permanent and mandatory injunction be granted against the defendant from interfering in her property.
The law is settled, that the averments made in the plaint only have to be seen to deal with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. The contention of the petitioner that the reply of the defendant to his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had
2011:DHC:8828 substantiated his submission that the plaintiff is out of possession of the suit property cannot be gone into. It is the averments in the plaint which have to be perused while dealing with such an application. The impugned order in no manner calls for any ' interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 05, 2011 rtb
2011:DHC:8828
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed with costs of Rs.
2,000/-; court had noted that this was a delaying tactic on the part of the defendant.
Record shows that present suit is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. Contention of the plaintiff as is clear from paragraph 3 of the suit is that she was in continuous possession of the said plot; defendant was creating a hindrance in her property; prayer was made that a permanent and mandatory injunction be granted against the defendant from interfering in her property.
The law is settled, that the averments made in the plaint only have to be seen to deal with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. The contention of the petitioner that the reply of the defendant to his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had
2011:DHC:8828 substantiated his submission that the plaintiff is out of possession of the suit property cannot be gone into. It is the averments in the plaint which have to be perused while dealing with such an application. The impugned order in no manner calls for any ' interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 05, 2011 rtb
2011:DHC:8828
JUDGMENT