A finance company facing a borrower's civil suit and temporary injunction sought a direction to decide its Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application alleging bar under Section 34 SARFAESI Act. The High Court disposed of the petition directing the trial court to decide the application within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:170347
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11064 of 2024
Petitioner :- Cholamandalam Investment Finance Company Respondent :- Shri Suresh Pal Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
"i) To set aside the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 4, Agra in Original Suit No. 272 of 2021 titled as Suresh Pal Singh Vs. Smt. Sandhya Gautam and others.
ii) issue a writ order or direction to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Agra to decide the issue no. 5 frame vide order dated 29.07.2024 or decide the Application under 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner in Original Suit No. 272 of 2021 (Suresh Pal Singh Vs. Smt. Sandhya Gautam and others) within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
Order Date :- 24.10.2024 V.S.Singh
Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Should the trial court be directed to decide the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Cholamandalam Investment Finance Company
Shri Suresh Pal Singh
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
