Disposed

Rakesh Tatiya v. Raja Saluja

Chhattisgarh HC2 Oct 2024CR/54/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision No. 54 of 2024 was filed challenging the rejection of a plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Senior Advocate sought permission to withdraw the revision with liberty to raise the issue of limitation before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the civil revision with liberty to move an application for preliminary issue of limitation before the trial court.

Rakesh Tatiya Vs Raja Saluja — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

2024:CGHC:39119

¶3

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Civil Revision No. 54 of 2024

¶7

Rakesh Tatiya, S/o Mangilal Tatiya, Aged about 51 years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Bhatapara, Taluka-Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Vijay Maheshwari, S/o B.L. Maheshwari, R/o Sector 1, Shivanand Nagar, Raipur, Taluka-Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Applicants/Defendants No. 4 and 10

¶10

Versus

¶11

Raja Saluja, S/o Late Pratap Sinha Saluja, Aged about 30 years, R/o Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara, Taluka Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Ramrajji Chhabada W/o Sharan Sinha Chhabda, Aged about 76 years, R/o Village Kharora, Tehsil-Tilda, Taluka-Tilda, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Jagjeet Sinha Saluja, S/o Late Pratap Sinha Saluja, Aged about 48 years, R/o Gurunanak Ward Bhatapara, Taluka- Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Shashibhushan Shukla, S/o Chakrapani Shukla, Aged about 51 years, R/o Druga Cairiar Private Ltd., Kisaan Rise Mill Ke Pass Lawan Road, Balodabazar, Taluka Balodabazar, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh

¶15

Abdul Kasim, S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, Aged about 33 years, R/o Near By Raja Masjid Moudahapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Abdul Hasim, S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, R/o Near By Raja Masjid Moudahapara, Raipur, Taluka-Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

Abdul Najim, S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, Aged about 29 years, R/o Near By Raja Masjid Moudahapara, Raipur, Taluka-Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

Abdul Irfan, S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, Aged about 26 years, R/o Near By Raja Masjid Moudahapara, Raipur, Taluka-Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

Parvin Bano, W/o Late Abdul Jabbar, Aged about 50 years, R/o Near By Raja Masjid, Moudahapara, Raipur, Taluka-Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

¶21

State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bhatapara (wrongly mentioned as S/o Bhatapara), Taluka-Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh

¶22

... Non-Applicants/Plaintiff and Defendants

¶23

For Applicants	:	Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shiwali Bansal, Advocate
For Non-Applicant No. 1	:	Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate
For Non-Applicant No. 2	:	Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate
For Non-Applicant No. 4	:	Mr. Chetan Singh Chouhan, Advocate
For Non-Applicant No. 10	:	Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy.Govt. Advocate

¶24

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶25

03.10.2024

¶26

The applicants/defendants No. 4 and 10 have assailed the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned II^nd Civil Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. CJ/23/2018, where by an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. The defendant No. 3 has taken three grounds:

¶27

(i) Proper court fee was not affixed;

¶28

(ii) Suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation;

¶29

(iii)Suit is not maintainable according to the provisions of Section 33 of the Registration Act as the power of attorney was not registered instrument.

¶30

Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants, argued for considerable time and thereafter she sought permission of this Court to withdraw this civil revision with liberty to move an application before the learned trial Court to decide the issue of limitation as preliminary issue.

¶31

¶32

No objection from other side.

¶33

Permission granted.

¶34

The civil revision is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of applicants/defendants No. 4 and 10 to move an application before the Court below for framing of preliminary issue with regard to limitation and if such an application is moved, it expected that the Court below will decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶35

With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the civil revision is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

vatti

Rakesh Tatiya v. Raja Saluja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Tatiya v. Raja Saluja

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

Prop. Gourishankar Rice Mill Vs Shiv Kumar Agrawal

Panchram Vs Danujari and Another

Shri Satyanarayan Mandir Samiti Vs (Deleted) Akshaya Kumar (Died) Through Lrs.

Shantilal (Died) Through LRs Vs Nemichand Dead Through Lrs Shanti Bai and Others

Sukhlal and Ors. Vs Mahesiya and Ors.

Vivek Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh