Judgment · High Court · 2005
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
ons, the revision is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Shri B.R. Ghosh, Counsel f<t ir the petitioners. Heard on admission. Respondent No.1 filed a ci\( il suitfor declaration oftitte and arrears of rent. Petitioners filed an app| ication under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. averring that the suit is barj
Operative part
1956. Learned Court below consid!er has been illed for declaratibn of K ed by. the provisions of Companies Act, !ered the pleading and held that the suit itle is not barred under the Companies Act, 1956, therefore rejected the a( splication filed under Qrder 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. According to Order 7, Rul^ be rejected where from the statenl passed the smpugned order. Th< suffer from any illegality or irregulE s 11 (d) of the C.P.C., the plaint shall lent in the plaint the suit appears to be ver Court considered this aspect and 'refore, the impugned order does not rity which may. cal! for any interference. !f jurisdiction of Court challenged pressed petitioners/defendants by specific after framing preliminary issue dec Wlth the aforesaid observati pleading, .the Court may, if deem Tit, ide the same on its merit. ons, the revision is dismissed. !n the light of above ordei , M.C.P.No. 1222/20)5 and IA Nos. 2321/2005 and 7076/2005 stand i ^^-,^^ /- Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge (Ifl^^l^)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: ons, the revision is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 7 r. 11; Companies Act, 2013.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 07 Nov 2005.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.