Dismissed

K.C. Abraham v. Jagatram Patel

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2023CR/12/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed this revision petition preferring by defendant against trial court order dismissing his application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Trial Court held no rebuttal was filed in written statement by applicant, hence objections dismissed. Appeal disposed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; applicant/defendant liberty to raise objections by filing written statement before trial court.

K.C. Abraham Vs Jagatram Patel — Specific Performance | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CR No.12 of 2023

¶4

K.C. Abraham S/o Late Shri K. Chako Aged About 58 Years R/o C-125, NTPC Township, Post Office Urjanagar, Bharuch, District Bharuch, Gujarat

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jagatram Patel S/o Shri Chamar Singh Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o House No.862, Ward No.15, (Present Ward No.29), Dipu Para, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tahsil Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Applicant For Respondent

¶10

Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate

¶11

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

08/08/2023

¶14

The present revision has been preferred by the applicant/defendant against the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned 4^th Upper District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.88-A/2021, whereby the application preferred by the defendant/applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for specific performance of contract, which was registered as Civil Suit No.88-A/2021. The applicant, who is the defendant before the Trial Court, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC

¶16

before the Trial Court on the ground that no valid agreement was executed between the parties and no amount as shown in the sale agreement was received by the defendant, as such prayed for dismissal of the plaint.

¶17

The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application of the applicant/defendant, hence the present revision has been filed by the applicant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant submits that the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts. The objection made by the applicant/defendant was required to be considered but the learned Trial Court ignored the material facts of the record and passed the illegal order which is contrary to law. He further submits that the plaintiff himself has pleaded in para 8 of the plaint that the cheque in question has not been encashed, but the said fact has not been taken into consideration. The agreement dated 21.08.2018 does not stipulate any right for the plaintiff for specific performance of contract, as such no right is available to him when the sale agreement has expired and even no advance amount was received by the defendant. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶21

It is clear from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court

¶22

minutely observed the plaint averments and decided all objections of the applicant. The defendant denies of having executed any agreement of sale with the plaintiff and even no advance amount is said to have been received by him, but no written statement was filed by the defendant denying the same, thus without any rebuttal, the objection of the applicant/defendant cannot be decided. The order passed by the learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of legal position of law, as such the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the defendant/applicant.

¶23

The revision being without any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. However, the applicant/defendant is at liberty to raise all the objections by filing written statement before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court after framing issues, adducing evidence and hearing the parties shall decide the same at the time of final judgment.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Rajani Dubey Judge

¶26

Nirala

K.C. Abraham v. Jagatram Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C. Abraham v. Jagatram Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. S. Thakur and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

D.k. Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Satish Saraf Vs Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalay

K. Prasanna Kumar Vs Union Of India

Smt. Hameeda Begum Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Krishlal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh