CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908
ORDER 7 RULE 11
Basic principles for deciding application for rejection of plaint
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.
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. The conditionsprecedent to the exercise of power under Order VII rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out 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.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO.5254 OF 2006 P.V. GURU RAJ REDDY REP. BY GPA LAXMI NARAYAN REDDY & ANR. VERSUS P. NEERADHA REDDY & ORS. ETC. Dated;FEBRUARY 13, 2015. RANJAN GOGOI, J.
REVENUE
Mutation—Mutation of a property in the revenue records—It is a settled position of law that the mutation of a property in the revenue records are fiscal proceedings and does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title.
2019 SAR (Civil)...Supreme Court.IN...Ajit Kaur @ Surjit Kaur Versus Darshan Singh (D) through LRS. & Ors.; Civil Appeal No(S). 226 of 2010; Decided on 4th April, 2019.]
In A. C. NARAYANAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Reported in 2014 (11) SCC 790 , A 3 - JUDGES BENCH of the Hon'ble Apex Court Has Settled the LAW on the aspect of filing of Criminal Complaint by GPA Holder and RULED in the Following Manner : " Filing of Complaint by GPA HOLDER is Permissible and Legal under Sec. 138 of N. I. ACT CASES . HOWEVER , the Complainant Must Specifically Aver in the Complaint that the GPA has got knowledge and Acquaintance with the transaction in question . Hence , Specific Pleading as to the Knowledge of GPA Is Mandatory and Should be supported by relevant documents ''
clause(b) of the proviso to section 138 of the NI Act
that the notice under section 138 of the NI Act can be issued only for the cheque amount and not for any other amount more than the cheque amount.
"Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churwal & Anr." 2000(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 780 : (2000) 2 SCC 380, "K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana" 2003(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 966 : (2003) 8 SCC 300 and "Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals & Anr." 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 973 : (2008) 2 SCC 321
It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief.
The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are
First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property;
Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract;
Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract;
Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly,
whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what grounds.
11. In our opinion, the aforementioned questions are part of the statutory requirements (See Sections 16 (c), 20, 21, 22, 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the forms 47/48 of Appendix A to C of the Code of Civil Procedure). These requirements have to be properly pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings and proved with the aid of evidence in accordance with law. It is only then the Court is entitled to exercise its discretion and accordingly grant or refuse the relief of specific performance depending upon the case made out by the parties on facts. Supreme Court of India
Kamal Kumar vs Premlata Joshi on 7 January, 2019 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4453 OF 2009 Author: A M Sapre