Bombay HC: Can’t Entertain Application Increasing Valuation of Suit if Pecuniary Jurisdiction Lost  ||  Bom. HC: Information of Previous Bail Applications And Orders to Be Give in All Bail Applications  ||  Cal. HC: Clause in GCC Specifying App. of Officers For Arbitration Violative of S. 12(5) of A&C Act  ||  Cal HC: High Court Lacks Jurisd. When Application u/s 9A of A&C Act Filed Before Commercial Court  ||  All. HC: Jurisdiction of GST & Central Excise Supt. Limits to Matters Not Exceeding Rs. 10 Lakh  ||  Delhi High Court: Legal Database’s Subscription Can’t Be Considered as Transfer of Copyright  ||  Centre Notifies Date for Enforcement of Criminal Laws Replacing IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act  ||  Delhi High Court: Legal Database’s Subscription Can’t Be Considered as Transfer of Copyright  ||  Del HC: Incorrect to Deny Benefits to Construction Workers For Failing to Pay For Renewal of Regist.  ||  Mad. HC: Under NDPS Act, Conscious Possession With Physical Possession Essential Element For Offence    

Krishna Wadehra & Ors. vs Ram Parsad & Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (05 Jul 2022)

While exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has to see the averments made in the plaint and documents relied upon by the Plaintiff

MANU/DE/2304/2022

Civil

The present revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Predominantly, on the ground that the certified copy of sale deed dated 28th August, 1968, produced by the learned counsel for the defendant to prove his title, neither bears the signatures of vendor nor of the witnesses.

It has been submitted that, the suit being filed by the Respondent/plaintiff against the Petitioners/Defendants is an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned senior counsel submits that, it is an admitted case that, the Defendants/Petitioners are in possession of the suit property.

The Plaintiff/Respondent had filed the present suit on the basis that the property in dispute is bought by their predecessor-in-interest and they are in possession of the same. The Plaintiff's case is that the defendants have no right or title of interest over the suit property. Per contra, the case of the Defendants is that their predecessor-in-interest has purchased the property in interest from late Sh. Khushi Ram Kain.

It is a settled legal position that while exercising of power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has only to see the averments made in the plaint and documents relied upon by the plaintiff.

The Court in its revisional jurisdiction can interfere into the order of learned Trial Court only if there is manifest illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Trial Court. It is advantageous to refer Section 115 of the CPC which provides that "the High Court may interfere into the order only if the sub-ordinate court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or have exercised of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Petition dismissed.

Tags : REVISIONAL JURISDICTION   INTERFERENCE   ILLEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved