Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dr. Prabhat Kumar v. Dr. Madhu Baksh - CIVIL REVISION No. 28 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2135 (9 February 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


                                                                                                                 Court No. 24

Civil Revision   No. 28 of 2007

Dr. Prabhat Kumar Vs. Dr. Madhu Bakshi



Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist.

By the order under challenge the court below has rejected the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint.

It is contended by the learned counsel that the present suit of the  opposite-party/plaintiff for relief of permanent injunction is barred by Limitation and this fact is evident from the very assertion of the plaint itself. Therefore, the court below should have rejected the plaint as per the prayer of the petition made under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

This submission of the learned counsel appears to be wholly without substance. The suit of the opposite-party/plaintiff is for permanent injunction. The pleadings are that the plaintiff had advanced certain money for purchase of the property in dispute. She as a N.R.I. (Non Resident Indian) presently living in U.K., had received communication from the defendant-petitioner who happens to be her younger brother that a property which is lucrative should be purchased. She sent money for its purchase. After purchase of the property, the defendant did not give any information to the plaintiff. Now that the plaintiff has come to know that the property which was supposed to be purchased in the name of the plaintiff was not so done and the defendant-revisionist might sell the property to some one else.  This has given rise to the cause of action for the suit. Thus, from these pleadings it is gathered that the period of limitation of the suit has not to be counted from the date the money was advanced by the plaintiff and if in such a situation the court below has rejected the application given by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint on the point of limitation, no infirmity in the said order could be found out. The point of limitation shall, however,  remain open for decision after an issue on that is framed and it shall be decided at the time of disposal of the suit itself. There is no occasion for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The order as such appears to be perfect and an interference against the same in revisional jurisdiction of this court is not possible.

The revision is without merits and is hereby dismissed.




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


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 |

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