land reforms

This tag is associated with 2 posts

“Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates that where the suit appears from the averments made in the plaint to be barred by any law, then the plaint can be rejected. The legal position is that to decide whether a plaint is laible to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, averments in the plaint have to be read without looking at the CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 4 of 10 defence and thereupon it has to be seen whether on the averments made in the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure gets attracted. For rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 the averments in the plaint should be unequivocal, categorical and specific leading to only conclusion that the plaint is barred………………”= In the context of Section 185 of the DLR Act, Supreme Court in Gaon Sabha and Anr. Vs. Nathi and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 555 has held as under:- “The legal position is therefore absolutely clear and there cannot be even a slightest doubt that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was filed seeking a declaration that the order of CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 9 of 10 vesting of land in Gaon Sabha is illegal

CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 1 of 10 $~7 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2191/2007 and IA No. 7454/2009 (u/O 7 R 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) Decided on: 28th November, 2011 SMT. USHA GUPTA ….. Plaintiff Through : Mr. M.F. Khan and Mr. G.S. Chauhan, Adv. for … Continue reading

condonation of delay=Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is always open to be construed liberally and even a feeble explanation showing a shadow of a sufficient cause may be acceptable in view of the need for a decision on any dispute on merits but not on technicalities, the total absence of any allegation of existence of any sufficient cause cannot be condoned even if the person requesting for such condonation is the State itself.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD   FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.M.P.No.5642 of 2011 and C.R.P.(SR).No.23470 of 2011 Between: Government of Andhra Pradesh .. Petitioner AND L. Krishnavardhan Reddy & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,042 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com