https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310548 The Bombay HC dismissed an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking declaration regarding easement of necessity and easement by grant, along with permanent injunction. The court held that a correctly concluded order cannot be reversed solely due to incorrect reasoning. The dispute involved illegal blocking of a road providing access to property. The court ruled that under Rule 11(d), courts cannot go beyond plaint averments or decide disputed facts/law at that stage. Since the plaint's statements did not clearly show the suit was barred by law, rejection under Rule 11(d) was improper. The civil revision application was dismissed. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Oct 2023 20:38:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310548 The Bombay HC dismissed an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking declaration regarding easement of necessity and easement by grant, along with permanent injunction. The court held that a correctly concluded order cannot be reversed solely due to incorrect reasoning. The dispute involved illegal blocking of a road providing access to property. The court ruled that under Rule 11(d), courts cannot go beyond plaint averments or decide disputed facts/law at that stage. Since the plaint's statements did not clearly show the suit was barred by law, rejection under Rule 11(d) was improper. The civil revision application was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310548