Sukhminder Kaur Vs Nirmal Singh etc.

The present revision petition has been preferred by Sukhminder Kaur-defendant No.1 to the suit feeling aggrieved against the order dated 27.7.2011, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby her application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for dismissal of the suit, was rejected.

¶15

The petitioner/defendant No.1 has raised a plea in the application that the plaintiffs to the suit for partition have not described and pleaded about the joint properties in the names of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs denied this fact and reiterated that no other property is owned jointly by the parties. The trial Court dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that if the defendants succeed to prove that there are other joint properties, the plaintiffs will suffer to their own peril.

¶16

Civil Revision No. 5690 of 2011

¶17

2

¶18

The reasoning given by the trial Court suffers from no infirmity. Furthermore, whether the parties have other joint properties or not is a question of fact which is dependent upon the evidence to be adduced by them. Therefore, the application, filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, being premature, has been rightly dismissed.

¶19

Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine.

¶20

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 19, 2011 “ DK ”

Sukhminder Kaur v. Nirmal Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhminder Kaur v. Nirmal Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S H.N. Traders Vs Rashmi Kukreja

Gauri Shankar Vs Jagbir Singh & Ors.

Yatish Kumar Goel Vs Mool Chand Birla and Another

Taj Ali ( Neela) and Anr. Vs Barkate Alias Saida and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs Dhan Singh and Ors.

Parkash Singh Vs Satpal and Ors.