GAG v. Lalitabai Hanmantrao Patil & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the plaint. By prayer clause (a) relief of simplicitor injunction is claimed restraining the petitioner (original Deft. No.3 ) from interfering the respondent's possession. However, by prayer…
Judgment
Mr. I.M. Khairdi, Advocate for the Petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. CORAM DATED :: :: RANJIT MORE, J. 30th November, 2012. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Present Revision Petition arising out of the proceeding under Order VII Rule 11 of “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908” . The trial court held that it has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. The lower appellate court however, at the instance of respondent / (Ori. Plff.) rejected the petitioner's application filed U/Order VII Rule 11 of “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908” and, therefore, this Writ Petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the plaint. By prayer clause (a) relief of simplicitor injunction is claimed restraining the petitioner (original Deft. No.3 ) from interfering the respondent's possession. However, by prayer (b) the respondent / plaintiff seeks directions against the petitioner / defendant No.3 for repairs of the suit property. The counsel contends that though relief claimed in prayer clause (a) could be granted by the Civil Clout still, relief claimed in prayer clause (b) could not be entertained by the Civil Court and same is to be decided by the Rent Court. Even if submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, in that case also, plaint cannot be ２ rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. By now, it is settled position of law that the plaint cannot be rejected in part. It is not case of the petitioner / original Deft. No.3 that, prayer clause (a) of the suit cannot be entertained by the Civil Court. Objection is raised as regarding prayer clause (b) only. In these circumstances, directions issued by lower appellate court to the trial court to dispose of the suit on merit, cannot be faulted. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under section 115 of “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908”. Civil Revision Application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
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.