https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200754 A plaint challenging a compromise decree was found liable to rejection where, on the admitted facts, it did not disclose a real cause of action or any triable issue under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The alleged misdescription of the firm was treated as a substantive correction already reflected in the record, and the pleaded grounds did not establish nullity, fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation. A belated amendment sought at the hearing stage was also refused because it introduced inconsistent pleas aimed at avoiding rejection. The suit could not proceed on the pleaded grounds of nullity. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:52:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200754 A plaint challenging a compromise decree was found liable to rejection where, on the admitted facts, it did not disclose a real cause of action or any triable issue under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The alleged misdescription of the firm was treated as a substantive correction already reflected in the record, and the pleaded grounds did not establish nullity, fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation. A belated amendment sought at the hearing stage was also refused because it introduced inconsistent pleas aimed at avoiding rejection. The suit could not proceed on the pleaded grounds of nullity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200754