Dismissed

Dr C B Mathure v. Chetan Raj @ Chetan Kumar

Rajasthan HC13 May 2009CR/84/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court dismissed the appeal against a trial court order rejecting an application to reject a plaint under CPC. The Court ruled that the trial court's consideration of evidence, rather than just plaint averments, was legally impermissible, yet found no ground to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed summarily.

Dr C B Mathure Vs Chetan Raj @ Chetan Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2009)

¶1

S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 84/2007. Dr. C.B. Mathur & Ors. V/s. Chetan Raj @ Chetan Kumar @ Chetan Prakash & Ors.

¶2

¶3

S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 84/2007.

¶4

Dr. C.B. Mathur & Ors.

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Chetan Raj @ Chetan Kumar @ Chetan Prakash & Ors.

¶7

Date of Order: 13^th May, 2009

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH

¶9

Mr. M.M. Ranjan, for the petitioners. Mr. Hari Bareth, for the respondent.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 1.3.2007 passed on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the defendant petitioner which was rejected by the learned trial court by the aforesaid order. Several objections have been raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, however I find that so far as the objections which have been raised in the said application are concerned prima facie they do not fall within any of the clauses under Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC.

¶12

S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 84/2007. Dr. C.B. Mathur & Ors. V/s. Chetan Raj @ Chetan Kumar @ Chetan Prakash & Ors. 2

¶13

The grievance which has been raised in the application is based upon the material which the defendants seeks to rely upon and not based upon the plaint averments alone.

¶14

In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC based upon the material on which the defendant petitioner seeks to rely upon as mentioned in the application cannot be the ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as it is settled law that so far as an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned the court is required to consider only the plaint averments and not any material or evidence which the defendant seeks to rely upon..

¶15

In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 1.3.2007. It may also be noted here that since the filing of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the defendant petitioner has already submitted their written statement and the trial of the suit has

¶16

S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 84/2007. Dr. C.B. Mathur & Ors. V/s. Chetan Raj @ Chetan Kumar @ Chetan Prakash & Ors.

¶17

¶18

progressed after the framing of the issues.

¶19

In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I find no good ground to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.

¶20

No order as to costs.

¶21

(Dalip Singh),J.

¶22

Tanwar/Jr.P.A.

Dr C B Mathure v. Chetan Raj @ Chetan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr C B Mathure v. Chetan Raj @ Chetan Kumar

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

Smt.Sarbati Vs Hari Ram

Jagan and Anr. Vs Mahaveer Prasad Nayak and Ors.

Dasnam June Akhada Dattatray Vs Mahesh and Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs Ratan Lal

Ishwar Lal Vs Mool Singh

R S R T C Jaipur Vs Jagdish Pooniya