Single judge order dismissing an Article 226 writ petition. The High Court found no substance in submissions challenging the trial court's dismissal of an application to strike out a suit for property declaration. The petition was dismissed.
Writ petition and stay application 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.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6342/ 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6342/ 2015
Gordhan Singh-Petitioner Versus
Smt. Kalyani Devi & Anr.-Respondents
Date of Order-: : -11th May, 2015
Hon ' ble Ms. Ju st ice Bela M. Tr iv edi
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal, for petitioner.
ORDER
By t h e Cou r t :-
1 . The petitioner-defendant No.5 has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Civil Suit No.15/ 2014, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC.
2 . It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal for the petitioner that the respondentsplaintiffs having filed the suit relying on the agreement dated 20.03.2014 which is not admissible in evidence, the suit for declaration in respect of the ownership of the disputed property is not maintainable, and the Court has committed an error of law in dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6342/ 2015
2
3 . The Court does not find any substance in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is observed by the trial court that the defendant had failed to make out from the averments of the plaint that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by any law. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, the petition deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. By this order, the stay application also stands dismissed.
( Bela M. Tr ivedi) J.
R.Vaishnav 29.
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Ramesh Vaishnav-Personal Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow the writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for striking out a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gordhan Singh
Smt. Kalyani Devi
Bela M. Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
