<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (2) TMI 1233 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194096</link>
    <description>Unauthorized amendments in an amended plaint that have no material bearing on the suit&#039;s outcome need not be corrected by filing a fresh plaint, and the court may proceed with framing issues. The court also declined to defer the suit pending any challenge to the dismissal of an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, holding that further proceedings should continue. It framed issues on the pleadings, including the effect and validity of key property and testamentary documents, limitation, court fees and authority to sign the plaint. A Court Commissioner was appointed to record evidence within the court complex on a fixed timeline, with costs initially borne by the plaintiff subject to final adjustment. Leave was granted to file documents and witness lists, and the interim application under Order XI Rules 1 and 14 CPC was disposed of as not pressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:40:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1233 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194096</link>
      <description>Unauthorized amendments in an amended plaint that have no material bearing on the suit&#039;s outcome need not be corrected by filing a fresh plaint, and the court may proceed with framing issues. The court also declined to defer the suit pending any challenge to the dismissal of an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, holding that further proceedings should continue. It framed issues on the pleadings, including the effect and validity of key property and testamentary documents, limitation, court fees and authority to sign the plaint. A Court Commissioner was appointed to record evidence within the court complex on a fixed timeline, with costs initially borne by the plaintiff subject to final adjustment. Leave was granted to file documents and witness lists, and the interim application under Order XI Rules 1 and 14 CPC was disposed of as not pressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>