https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434780 A suit framed as one for declaratory and injunctive reliefs was treated as falling within Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure because the plaint itself placed immovable property at the centre of the dispute, challenged title and interest, and sought restraints affecting alienation, third-party dealings and possession. The proviso to Section 16 could not displace that character where possession-related relief was involved. The text also notes that return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 is distinct from rejection under Order VII Rule 11, so allowing both applications together was internally inconsistent and the rejection portion required deletion while the return of plaint remained. en-us Thu, 02 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Mar 2023 07:26:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434780 A suit framed as one for declaratory and injunctive reliefs was treated as falling within Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure because the plaint itself placed immovable property at the centre of the dispute, challenged title and interest, and sought restraints affecting alienation, third-party dealings and possession. The proviso to Section 16 could not displace that character where possession-related relief was involved. The text also notes that return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 is distinct from rejection under Order VII Rule 11, so allowing both applications together was internally inconsistent and the rejection portion required deletion while the return of plaint remained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434780