Patna High Court assessed a civil revision against a single judge order refusing to reject a plaint object claiming the underlying agreement was unexecuted. The court found no infirmity, upholding that evidence evaluation is a trial court's function.
The civil revision application is disposed of, and the impugned order is upheld.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.111 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Archana Mukherjee, W/O Mr. Bijon Mukherjee, 160/C, Block-C (2nd Floor), New Alipore, Kolkata. 2. Chandana Chatterjee, W/O Mr. Malay Chatterjee, 2/4, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi-110021, At present T.N. Banerjee Road, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, DistrictPatna. ....Defendants nos.2 and 3 .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Madhumesh Choudhary, S/O Sri Tarkeshwar Pd. Choudhary, R/O Awaran, Choduhary Market, Ashok Raj Path, P.S.- Pirbahore, Town & District- Patna. .... Plaintiff .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sajal Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
3 15-10-2012 Heard Mr. Sajal Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioners.
This civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 4.4.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Patna in Title Suit No.478 of 2010, whereby the learned court below has been pleased to reject the objection filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioners under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).
The suit in question has been filed for specific performance of contract.
The only issue which is raised by the petitioners for maintaining their application under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Code is that the very agreement on which the plaintiff seeks to
Patna High Court C.R. No.111 of 2012 (3) dt.15-10-2012
2
rely is an unexecuted deed. The learned court below having considered the objections raised by the defendant-petitioners in the application and having taken note of the circumstances in which the application has been filed, has dismissed the same maintaining that the issue raised by the plaintiff requires consideration in the backdrop of the evidence to be led in support of the pleadings.
It is true that the deed sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff is not signed but the copy of the plaint placed at Annexure-1manifests that the plaintiff relies upon an agreement stated to have been entered between him and the father of the defendants. Whether or not the plaintiff would succeed in his proceedings is best left to the discretion of the learned trial court.
The learned trial court having appreciated the objections and having rejected the same on consideration that it requires evaluation of evidence by the contesting parties, no infirmity or jurisdictional error or any material irregularity can be found in the order impugned.
This civil revision application is disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
SKPathak/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the objection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) code, which contended the contract is unexecuted, is sustainable.
Whether the impugned order warrants interference in civil revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Archana Mukherjee
Chandana Chatterjee
State of Bihar
Madhumesh Choudhary
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
