https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294697 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 merely because objections such as misjoinder, defective verification, non-filing of originals, concealment, undervaluation or factual limitation issues are raised; rejection is confined to the express grounds in the rule and requires a clear absence of cause of action or statutory bar on the face of the plaint. On that basis, the challenge to the plaint was dismissed. Interim attachment before judgment was refused because an existing restraint order was adequate to protect the property. A receiver was, however, appointed on a prima facie basis to preserve the suit properties and secure rental income through court supervision. en-us Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:35:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294697 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 merely because objections such as misjoinder, defective verification, non-filing of originals, concealment, undervaluation or factual limitation issues are raised; rejection is confined to the express grounds in the rule and requires a clear absence of cause of action or statutory bar on the face of the plaint. On that basis, the challenge to the plaint was dismissed. Interim attachment before judgment was refused because an existing restraint order was adequate to protect the property. A receiver was, however, appointed on a prima facie basis to preserve the suit properties and secure rental income through court supervision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294697