The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Holding that the suit was instituted within the Pune jurisdiction where the respondent resided, the writ failed.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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.
2.wp-5376-18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5376 OF 2018
Mr.Cyrus Noshir Devghadwala … Petitioner versus Mrs.Armin Cyrus Devghadwala … Respondent
Mr.Vijendrakumar Rai i/b Hulyalkar and Associates for the Petitioner.
Mr.Hitesh Vyas for the Respondent.
CORAM :- SMT.BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATE :- MARCH 2, 2020
P.C. :-
Page 1 of 3
M.M.Salgaonkar
2.wp-5376-18.doc
opinion, in a rightful way.
Page 2 of 3
M.M.Salgaonkar
2.wp-5376-18.doc
the leave, the suit can be instituted in the place where the plaintiff resides or at the place where the plaintiff and the defendant lastly resided together. The bare reading in the contextual way of Section 29 would lead to no other conclusion than this.
(SMT.BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
M.M.Salgaonkar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the District Judge erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC regarding the bar of suit under Section 29 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Cyrus Noshir Devghadwala
Armin Cyrus Devghadwala
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
