A Civil Revision Application challenging the rejection of a petitioners' order under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC regarding a tenant's possession suit. The bench held no case for writ jurisdiction as possession is a question of fact, dismissing the revision.
Civil Revision Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2013
MR. MOHAN MUKUND GHATWAL AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus MR. GURUDAS ARJUN GHATWAL ... Respondent
Shri R. Gawas, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Coram:R. M. SAVANT, J.
Date:17th October, 2013
P.C.:
The application filed under Order 7 rule 11 by the petitioners/defendants for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action, has been rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 10/04/2013, which order is the subject matter of the above Civil Revision Application.
2
R. M. SAVANT, J.
NH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ jurisdiction can be exercised to challenge the Trial Court's rejection of an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of lack of cause of action.
Whether there is a case for exercising writ jurisdiction given that possession is a question of fact.
Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is to be set aside in the interest of justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MR. MOHAN MUKUND GHATWAL AND ANR.
MR. GURUDAS ARJUN GHATWAL
R. M. SAVANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
