Disposed

Vikas Kirdoliya v. Leela Dhar

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2024CR/201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant sought rejection of a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds of no cause of action and bar under the Hindu Succession Act; the trial court decided only the cause-of-action objection. The High Court directed the trial court to also decide the statutory-bar objection.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of directing trial court to decide the Order 7 Rule 11 objection regarding bar under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; stay application disposed of.

Vikas Kirdoliya Vs Leela Dhar — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:2751]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 201/2023

¶4

Vikas Kirdoliya S/o Shri Parsa Ram Kirdoliya, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Kirdoliya Ki Dhani, Matabhar Road, Makrana, District Nagaur. (Defendant No. 3)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Leela Dhar S/o Shri Sangi Das Ji, By Caste Jetha Maheshwari, Resident Of Jetha Pada, Jaisalmer. (Plaintiff)

¶8

Smt. Kalawati W/o Shri Mohan Lal, By Caste Sanwal Maheshwari, Resident Of Behind Gaushala, Barmer. (Plaintiff)

¶9

Smt. Chandra Kala W/o Shri Jugal Kishore, By Caste Chacha Maehshwari, Maternal Grand Daughter Of Late Shri Sangi Das Ji, Resident Of Chacha Pada, Jaisalmer, At Present Chennai. (Plaintiff)

¶10

Bhajan Lal S/o Late Shri Dhan Raj, By Caste Jetha Maheshwari, C/o Shrinath Fabrics, 79, Go Down Street Iind Floor, Chennai. (Defendant No. 1)

¶11

Brij Mohan S/o Late Shri Dhan Raj, By Caste Jetha Maheshwari, C/o Shrinath Fabrics, 79, Go Down Street Iind Floor, Chennai. (Defendant No. 2)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Thanvi Mr. Narendra Thanvi For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶15

Order

¶16

17/01/2024

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-defendant No.3 has preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the learned trial Court on two grounds: (i) that respondents-plaintiffs have no cause of action

¶18

[2024:RJ-JD:2751]

¶19

[CR-201/2023]

¶20

and (ii) that the suit is barred under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Learned counsel further submits that though the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order dated 21.08.2023, has discussed and decided the objection raised by the petitioner regarding cause of action but has not dealt with the issue with respect to the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the suit being barred by law.

¶21

In view of the above, the revision petition is disposed of with direction to the learned trial Court to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the suit being barred under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

¶22

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶23

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶24

42-Bharti/-

Vikas Kirdoliya v. Leela Dhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kirdoliya v. Leela Dhar

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

Shahdev Vs Tarun Prajapat

Firm Tara Chand Shyam Sunder Vs Firm Pemraj Tara Chand

Gaurav Vardia and Anr. Vs M/S Silver Cpoin Infrastructure P. Ltd.

Moola Ram Vs Durga Ram

C.T.O., a/E, Bhilwara Vs M/S Madhusudan Industries Ltd.

Commercial Taxes Officer Vs M/S Madhusudan Industries Limited