Dismissed

Vinod Chandra Pachauri v. Ramesh Chandra Dixit

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2019A227/5547/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application for defective plaint and dismissal of revision on court fee. Court rejected claim that missing date of induction makes plaint non-maintainable. Dismissed petition retaining court fee issue as preliminary.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with clarification that court fee issue shall be decided by trial court as preliminary issue.

Vinod Chandra Pachauri Vs Ramesh Chandra Dixit — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5547 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Vinod Chandra Pachauri Respondent :- Ramesh Chandra Dixit Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Manjul Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The instant petition has been filed assailing the order dated 18.8.2018, whereby the trial court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant-petitioner in Original Suit No. 106 of 2015 as well as the order dated 20.2.2019 passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision.

¶6

The plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit in question alleging that the petitioner was a licensee in the suit property; that his license was terminated by notice dated 14.2.2015. Accordingly, relief for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and for award of damages at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month, was prayed for.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaint does not disclose the date on which the petitioner was allegedly inducted as licensee in the suit property. According to him, because of non disclosure of the said fact, the plaint is rendered defective.

¶8

This Court is unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The disclosure of date on which the petitioner was inducted as licensee, does not constitute an essential part of the cause of action so as to non-suit the

¶9

plaintiff on the said ground. It would only be a relevant factor, while deciding the other issues in the suit. The plaint cannot be rejected on said ground alone.

¶10

The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that court fees for the relief of possession has not been paid. In this regard the courts below have observed that the issue relating to insufficiency of court fee would be decided as a preliminary issue. The view taken in this regard suffers from no illegality. There is no merit in the instant petition. It is accordingly, dismissed but with the clarification that the issue relating to court fee, shall be decided by the trial court as preliminary issue, as already observed by it.

¶11

(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 12.9.2019 Chandan

Vinod Chandra Pachauri v. Ramesh Chandra Dixit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Chandra Pachauri v. Ramesh Chandra Dixit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Lal Vs Markandey Yadav and Another

Prakash Chandra Bharadwaj Vs Sri Munawar-Uz-Zama @ Munawar Khan and 20 Others

Sachin Saini Vs Smt. Meenakshi Saini @ Usha

dhruv narayan rai Vs amar nath rai, district insepector of schools

Shahid Khan Vs Jameel Khan and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division), District - Mathura and 3 Others