Revision petition challenged dismissal of an Order VII Rule 11 application on pecuniary jurisdiction and valuation grounds. Counsel conceded the application lacked requisite details and sought withdrawal. Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court.
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.
$~5
Through: Mr. D. Sabharwal, Advocate. versus
SANJEEV KUMAR .....Respondent Through: CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
O R D E R % 01.08.2025
CM APPL. 31329-30/2025 [Exemption]
CM APPL. 31332/2025 [Delay in re-filing]
C.R.P. 150/2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 12:21:29
VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
AUGUST 1, 2025/ ha
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 12:21:29
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit was correctly valued for court fee and within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kumar
Sanjeev Kumar
Tara Vitasta Ganju
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
