In a title suit, the High Court dismissed a civil revision against the Munsif's rejection of the petitioner's Order VII rule 11 plea, as the lower court found no ground for interference regarding fraud allegations and delay.
The civil revision application is dismissed.
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.877 of 2009
======================================================
Subhash Prasad @ Subhash Chandra Gupta, son of Bharat Prasad, resident of Village- Raghunathpur, P.S. - Brahampur, District- Buxar.
.... Defendant .... Petitioner/s Versus
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 19.3.2009 passed by the learned Munsif 1st , Buxar in Title Suit No. 153 of 1994, whereby the objection raised by the petitioner who is defendant no.1 in the court below under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on grounds that it does not disclose any cause of action, has been rejected.
Perusal of the order impugned manifests that the learned court below after taking into consideration that the
Patna High Court C.R. No.877 of 2009 (4) dt.08-03-2013
2
plaintiff has questioned the agreement on the anvil of fraud as also taking into consideration that the suit being of the year 1994 an objection has been raised after 15 years thereafter when the issues have also been settled, has rejected the objection. No ground for interference is made out.
This civil revision application is dismissed.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
SKPathak/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Munsif's rejection of the plea that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.
Whether fraud and delay in raising the objection justify allowance of the civil revision application against Order VII rule 11 rejection.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subhash Prasad @ Subhash Chandra Gupta
Ashok Kumar
Kashi Nath
Kedar Nath
Avinash Prasad
Kunti Devi
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
