Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Dahiben v. Arvindbhai kalyanji Bhanusali 09/07/2020 SC Civil Appeal 9510 of 2020

How to Read this article:

1. Details of the case mentioned in Short Form
2. Pdf copy of Judgement is provided in the link
3.. Important Provisions are referred in list form 
4. Important words used in the judgements- meaning provided in the article
5.. Case law referred are provided in the list

Note:- Self read the judgement, in case any difficulty to understand anything, please write us in comment section.

1. Details of the Supreme Court Case

2. Link for Judgement

3. Main Sections
Civil Procedure Code- 
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Page No 11 of Judgment refer
Order VII Rule 14(1)
Order VII Rule 11(d)- Suit is barred by limitation.
Application for Rejection of   the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) i.e. no cause of action had been disclosed in the plaint and (d) i.e. barred by limitation of the CPC,

Other Provisions covered under the Judgements

Land Revenue Code
1. Section 73AA 
2. Notice under Section 135D 

Limitation Act:
1. Section 3 
2. Articles 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882
1. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

4. Important words used in the judgements- meaning provided in the article

Words Used in Judgement and their simple meaning:-

Impugned order: Impugned order means the order passed by a court that is challenged/or appeal is preferred before a higher court or revision is filed before the same court passing the order to revise the order passed by it. Impugned order generally means the order passed by a competent authority that is in question or that is the issue itself .

Affirm the order- In simple words, Declaring it correct.

Inter Alia- Among other things

Averment: A positive affirmation, allegation, or declaration of facts, especially in a pleading, as opposed to an argumentative statement or a statement based on induction or inference; generally this term is used in civil proceedings, as opposed to allegation in criminal proceedings.

Focus on words-  void, illegal, or ineffective

Judicial dictum/dicta is an opinion by a court on a question that is not essential to its decision even though it may be directly involved

5.. Case law referred are provided in the list

1. Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 Supp. SCC 315
Followed in Maharaj Shri Manvendrasinhji Jadeja v. Rajmata Vijaykunverba w/o Late
Maharaja Mahedrasinhji, (1998) 2 GLH 823

2. Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 512.
3.Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137
4. Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. (2007) 5 SCC 614.
5. Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557.
6. Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam (2005) 10 SCC 51. 
7. T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.(1977) 4 SCC 467.
8. I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,(1998) 2 SCC 170.
9. Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174.
10 Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 126.
11State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh (1991) 4 SCC 1.
12. Vidyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr.
13. Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs Civil Appeal No.2960/2019 decided on 13.03.2019.

Happy Reading,

No comments:

Post a comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.