TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court overturns judge's decision on plaint rejection, stresses full consideration. Appeal allowed, parties to bear own costs.</h1> <h3>Bansi Lal Versus Som Parkash and Ors.</h3> The High Court set aside the Senior Subordinate Judge's order, emphasizing that the rejection of a plaint should be as a whole and not in parts. The ... - Issues:1. Validity of alienations made by the father and subsequent suit for declaration and possession.2. Court's rejection of the plaint and subsequent appeal.3. Partial rejection of the plaint and the legality of such action.Analysis:Issue 1:The case involved five alienations made by the father, including those by the Official Receiver, leading to a suit for declaration and possession by the sons. The trial court held the alienations void, and the sons filed a petition for review which was dismissed. The Senior Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal against the rejection of the plaint, remanding the case for trial.Issue 2:The appellant, one of the vendees, challenged the Senior Subordinate Judge's order through an appeal. The question arose whether a second appeal lies from an order under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judge noted that a revision would be possible regardless, and the rejection of the plaint was ultimately deemed incorrect, leading to the allowance of the appeal.Issue 3:A critical aspect of the appeal was the legality of a partial rejection of the plaint. The appellant argued that a plaint must be rejected as a whole, citing legal precedents. The respondent contended that the case involved multiple suits combined into one, justifying the partial rejection. However, the judge concluded that the rejection should have been in its entirety, as it was one plaint despite multiple causes of action, ultimately allowing the appeal and ordering accordingly.In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Senior Subordinate Judge's order, emphasizing that the rejection of a plaint should be as a whole and not in parts. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
