Defendant's suit-maintainability objection had led the Trial Court to dismiss a suit; appeal under Section 96 CPC was allowed and remanded. High Court found no Order VII Rule 11 application existed, disposed petition directing Trial Court to re-consider maintainability at final arguments and expedite disposal.
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.
$~6
Through: Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Advocate
versus
KAVINDRA SINGH & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pardeep Gupta with Mr. Rakshit Rathi, Advocates for Respondent No.1 and 2 (through V.C.) Mr. Akash Bharioke, Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 217/2019
1
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 6.11.2024 14:43:33
allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the learned Trial Court to proceed with the trial.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 217/2019
2
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 6.11.2024 14:43:33
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
NOVEMBER 05, 2024/st
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 217/2019
3
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 6.11.2024 14:43:33
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court's dismissal on the assumption an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application had been filed when none was moved.
How should maintainability of the suit be reconsidered given trial is at plaintiff's evidence stage?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Usha Rani
Kavindra Singh
Manoj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
