Revision applications challenging rejection of applications for rejection of plaint on grounds of non-compliance with Order IV Rule 1 CPC were dismissed. The High Court saw no reason to interfere with the trial court's orders.
Both Civil Revision Applications numbered 9 and 11 of 2014 were rejected.
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.
cra9.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2014
Dattatraya s/o Bhagwan Barate,
R/o-Kasbapeth, Kallamb,
Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmnabad.
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
Bajrang s/o Bhagwan Shinde,
R/o-Satra, Tq-Kallamb,
Dist-Osmanabad
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.11 OF 2014
Dattatraya s/o Bhagwan Barate,
R/o-Kasbapeth, Kallamb,
Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmnabad.
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
Surekha w/o Bajrang Shinde,
R/o-Satra, Tq-Kallamb,
Dist-Osmanabad
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
cra9.14
2
...
Shri.Shivprasad G. Jadhavar Advocate for
Applicant in both Revision Applications.
...
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2014
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for Applicant in both
the Revision Applications. Applicant is original
Defendant No.2 in Regular Civil Suits. The learned
counsel is submitting that in both the matters,
original Defendants filed application under Order
VII Rule 11(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 ("C.P.C." for short) claiming that the Plaint
had not been filed in duplicate under Order IV
Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and hence under the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (e) of the C.P.C.,
the Plaint deserves to be rejected.
2.Learned counsel is pointing out copy of
cra9.14
3
the Plaint from each of the matters which has
endorsement in the nature of list of what was
filed with the Plaint and according to him, it
shows that the Plaint was not filed in duplicate.
What is mentioned at Sr. No.1 as "plaint - 2",
according to the learned counsel, means that the
second copy was for the Defendant and so the
Plaint was not filed in duplicate.
3.The Revision Application shows that the
Plaintiff filed reply to the application of the
Defendants and claimed that the Plaint in
duplicate, is already filed and so Order VII Rule
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as tried to be
applied, would not apply.
4.ThetrialCourtconsideredthe
submissions and passed order in both matters
recording that Plaint in duplicate is already
filed, and the Court rejected the applications.
cra9.14
4
5. There are more than one Defendant in each
of the suit and to read the list in the manner
sought by Applicants is uncalled for. I do not
find any reason to interfere in the matters,
looking to the orders passed by the trial Court.
6.Both the Revision Applications are
rejected.
[A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.]
asb/JAN14
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly rejected applications under Order VII Rule 11(e) CPC claiming insufficient duplicate copies of plaint.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dattatraya s/o Bhagwan Barate
Bajrang s/o Bhagwan Shinde
Surekha w/o Bajrang Shinde
A.I.S. CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court