https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305839 The Delhi High Court held that for a suit under Section 92 CPC valued above Rs. 50,000, its ordinary original civil jurisdiction under Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act prevailed over the earlier local rule treating the District Judge as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. It further held that a challenge to consent for institution under Section 92 failed because the allegation of fraud was vague and unsupported by particulars, and the signing officer's designation did not by itself invalidate the consent. On the pleadings, the decree for the proposed donation was sustained, as the objections raised did not displace the limited relief sought. en-us Thu, 11 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Dec 2022 11:24:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305839 The Delhi High Court held that for a suit under Section 92 CPC valued above Rs. 50,000, its ordinary original civil jurisdiction under Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act prevailed over the earlier local rule treating the District Judge as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. It further held that a challenge to consent for institution under Section 92 failed because the allegation of fraud was vague and unsupported by particulars, and the signing officer's designation did not by itself invalidate the consent. On the pleadings, the decree for the proposed donation was sustained, as the objections raised did not displace the limited relief sought. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305839