CASE BRIEFS

The following issues were framed by the trial court: (in 2007 suit)

“1. Whether the description of suit property is correct?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that he has purchased suit property and he acquired valid title as pleaded?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property?

4. Whether Defendant 2 proves that KSFC had no authority to put the suit property     for sale?

5. Whether Defendant 2 proves that there is no cause of action for the suit?

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree?

7. What decree or order.”?

Whether DLR Act will ceases to apply after passing notification under section 507 of DMC Act?

Whether tax could be levied by MCD after urbanization of agricultural land?

Whether court can in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 142 of Constitution of India, can pass an order of automatic vacation of interim/stay orders of the High Courts of staying proceedings of civil or criminal cases on the expiry of certain period?

Whether this court under article 142 can direct the High courts to decide pending case in which interim order of stay of proceedings has been granted, on day-to-day basis and within a fixed period?

Whether the issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’)?

 Whether a larger period of limitation of 12 years would be available to the plaintiffs to bring in a suit by virtue of application of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1968 (for short ‘The Act’), as contended by the appellant and in the facts and circumstances obtained in this case?

 Whether Article 17 or Article 65 of the Act got any application, as contended by the appellants, in view of the plaint averments, in case Article 136 of the Act is found inapplicable?

Whether the High court order is viable wherein allowing the application under order 7 rule 11 (d) thereby rejecting the plaint on ground of limitation?

Whether the rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation is a triable issue or suit can be dismissed at threshold?

Whether the plaint can be rejected only against one defendant or it must be rejected as whole?

What is the correct application of the principle underlying the “rejection of plaint” under order 7 rule 11 of CPC?

Whether the plaint can be rejected in part?

Remedy under order 7 rule 11 is special and independent remedy and application under the said order should be adjudged at the threshold. The crucial objection under order 7 rule 11 is clause (a) that is no cause of action and clause (d) suit is barred by the law.

Whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief under article 32 against the final judgment of the apex court after dismissal of review petition?

whether an order passed by this Court can be corrected under its inherent powers after dismissal of the review petition on the ground that it was passed either without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved person.

Whether the writ under article 226 of Constitution of India lie against the order of the civil court?

Whether the finding of the court in Surya devi Rai (supra) is correct?