The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's decision to deny rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court held the impugned order did not suffer from material irregularities attracting Article 227 jurisdiction. Per;null
The revision petition was 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.
Civil Revision No. 1915 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1915 of 2010
Date of Decision: March 22 , 2010
Krishan Kumar Vashishtha
...... Petitioner
Versus
Hemant Kumar Vashishtha and others ...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ajay Tewari, J.
This petition has been filed against the order dismissing the application of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint by respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 had filed a suit for rendition of accounts primarily against the respondent no.2 alleging that the respondent No.2 had been illegally diverting the proceeds of partnership business in favour of the petitioner. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC alleging that main relief was against respondent No.2 and that there was no evidence of any diversion.
Learned trial Court rejected the application holding that it could not be held that the plaint did not reveal any cause of action and that at the most it could be stated that the cause of action can later on be proved to
Civil Revision No. 1915 of 2010 2
exist. Consequently the Court held that for want of evidence at this stage the plaint could not be rejected. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from such material irregularities as to merit interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
March 22, 2010 sunita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revision under Article 227 can interfere with the trial court's decision not to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of immediate evidence.
Whether the order dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint suffers from material irregularities warranting High Court interference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishan Kumar Vashishtha
Hemant Kumar Vashishtha
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
