Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
9 judgments · newest first · showing 1–9
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order of the 5th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon, which had refused to reject the plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 186 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. They alleged that the first defendant was not the legal wife of the …
The applicants filed a civil revision challenging the trial court's order rejecting their application to dismiss a suit on grounds of limitation and improper valuation. They argued that the suit seeking cancellation of a 1997 relinquishment deed was filed within the three‑year period prescribed by …
MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.2.52 crore against Renuka Realtors, seeking urgent interim reliefs including injunction and attachment before judgment. The respondents moved to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, arguing non‑compliance with the …
The petitioners, who are non‑signatories to a 2008 Development Agreement and an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, challenged a civil judge’s order directing them to pay court fees. They sought a declaration that the documents do not bind them, without claiming the instruments are void ab …
The petitioners, a group of women, filed a suit seeking declaration that a 1989 release deed concerning ancestral property was void and also sought partition of the property. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground of non‑payment of court fees. The …
The applicant, Alex Peter Dabre, filed a civil revision seeking the rejection of a plaint on the grounds of under‑valuation of the suit claim and non‑payment of requisite court fees under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) of the CPC. The trial court had dismissed the applicant’s application, holding the …
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a November 2019 order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Alibag, which had partially allowed an application by defendants 4‑7 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC and directed that the suit be valued under Section 6(4)(i) of the Maharashtra Court …
The petitioner, a former foreman of the respondent partnership firm, occupied a flat provided as a service tenant and refused to vacate after his employment ended in 2007. The respondent filed an eviction suit under Section 16(1)(f) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and the petitioner …
The appellant filed a civil suit for specific performance which was referred to mediation under Section 89 of the CPC and settled amicably; he sought a full refund of the court fees paid, but the trial court allowed only a 50% refund. He challenged this in a writ petition, arguing that Section 16 of …
