https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285139 The Delhi HC applied Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject a plaint where the plaintiff's own pleadings and documents showed that he had executed the impugned settlements, obtained a divorce decree on sworn statements, and later attempted to resile from those statements to challenge the same transactions. The Court found that he had taken inconsistent positions to defeat creditors, had misled the Court, and was equally at fault. On that basis, the doctrine of in pari delicto applied, and a party could not seek relief founded on his own fraud or illegal conduct. The plaint was therefore barred by law and rejected. en-us Mon, 06 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:54:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285139 The Delhi HC applied Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject a plaint where the plaintiff's own pleadings and documents showed that he had executed the impugned settlements, obtained a divorce decree on sworn statements, and later attempted to resile from those statements to challenge the same transactions. The Court found that he had taken inconsistent positions to defeat creditors, had misled the Court, and was equally at fault. On that basis, the doctrine of in pari delicto applied, and a party could not seek relief founded on his own fraud or illegal conduct. The plaint was therefore barred by law and rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285139