Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KANHAIYA LAL GUPTA versus SHAHABUDDIN AND ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KANHAIYA LAL GUPTA v SHAHABUDDIN AND ORS - CR Case No. 78 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 2780 (17 November 2006)

C.R.No.78/06

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.78/2006

Kanhaiya Lal Gupta

Vs.

Shahabuddin & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER :: 17/11/2006

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

Mr. M.M. Ranjan, for petitioner

***

Instant revision petition has been filed by the 1st defendant-petitioner against the order dated

June, 2006 whereby his application filed under O.7

R.11 CPC was dismissed by the learned trial Judge.

Facts, in brief, are that the respondent- plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction under O.7 R.1 CPC with the following prayer:

"That a suit was filed by Shri Shahabuddin on the basis of unregistered agreement to sale. He alleged in the plaint that he had purchased through agreement to sale Khasra

No.354/1 and the defendants are causing hindrance in his possession an prayed as under:

-2

-1

-1

"

C.R.No.78/06

After service of notice, the petitioner filed written statement and also filed application under

O.7 R.11 CPC with an objection that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and entire thrust is based on unregistered agreement to sale and in such circumstances, if the respondent is permitted to try the suit, the entire exercise will be in futility and accordingly, hasprayed for rejection of the plaint.

Learned trial Judge after taking into consideration the material which has come on record, particularly, the plaint and documents annexed thereto, recorded a finding that the respondent- plaintiff has sought permanent injunction against the disputed property referred to therein and there is no statutory bar in questioning the present dispute and has further observed that the objection, which has been raised by the petitioner, can be considered only after issues are framed and parties are permitted to lead evidence.

I have gone through the order passed by the learned trial Judge dated 1st June, 2006.

In my opinion, the finding recorded is duly supported by material on record and the suit certainly discloses the cause of action for which it has been filed. Counsel has not been able to show that there is any statutory bar in filing of the suit by the respondent-plaintiff.

C.R.No.78/06

Consequently, I do not find any force in the present revision petition, the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, the observations made above will not come in way for adjudication of the dispute. [AJAY RASTOGI],J.

FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.