Petitioners challenged dismissal of their Order VII Rule 11 CPC application seeking rejection of a plaint in a commercial suit. During hearing they sought permission to withdraw the petition, which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
$~85
Through: Counsel for petitioners ( appearance not given )
versus
ANITA LUTHRA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R % 14.10.2025
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 15/10/2025 at 12:03:24
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
OCTOBER 14, 2025/ ry
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 15/10/2025 at 12:03:24
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the trial court warranted interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amita Sharma & Ors.
Anita Luthra & Ors.
Girish Kathpalia
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
