Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rami Vs. Shyo Karan and anr

Rami vs Shyo Karan and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Sep 02, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1027721

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rami

Respondent

Shyo Karan and anr

Excerpt

[1] in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur order s.b. civil writ petition no.10263/2013 rami versus shyo karan & anr. date of order :02. 09.2013 present hon'ble mr. justice govind mathur mr. j.r. chawel for the petitioner by the court : by the order dated 08.07.2013, learned civil judge (junior division), nohar rejected the application preferred by the defendant-petitioner under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint. the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner while giving challenge to the order aforesaid is that the suit was filed for cancellation of adoption deed made by rami devi, who is said to be not in position to hear, see or to take any positive action to execute such kind of deed. it is submitted that the petitioner adopted respondent no.2 rameshwar as son in the year 1985 and thereafter the petitioner stayed with rameshwar continuously, as such, no right is available to the respondent- plaintiff to challenge the adoption deed. [2] i do not find any merit in the argument advanced. it is well-settled that powers under order 7 rule 11 cpc can be invoked only in the circumstances that the plaintiff fails to show any cause of action or the cause sought to be agitated is absolutely vexatious. in the instant matter, that is not the position. as per the averments contained in the plaint, prima facie cause of action is apparent, as such, no wrong is committed by the court below while rejecting the application under order 7 rule 11 cpc. no interference with the order impugned is desirable. the writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. [govind mathur],j.pramod

Full Judgment

[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10263/2013 Rami Versus Shyo Karan & Anr. Date of Order :

02. 09.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. J.R. Chawel for the petitioner BY THE COURT : By the order dated 08.07.2013, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nohar rejected the application preferred by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner while giving challenge to the order aforesaid is that the suit was filed for cancellation of adoption deed made by Rami Devi, who is said to be not in position to hear, see or to take any positive action to execute such kind of deed. It is submitted that the petitioner adopted respondent No.2 Rameshwar as son in the year 1985 and thereafter the petitioner stayed with Rameshwar continuously, as such, no right is available to the respondent- plaintiff to challenge the adoption deed. [2] I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. It is well-settled that powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be invoked only in the circumstances that the plaintiff fails to show any cause of action or the cause sought to be agitated is absolutely vexatious. In the instant matter, that is not the position. As per the averments contained in the plaint, prima facie cause of action is apparent, as such, no wrong is committed by the court below while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. No interference with the order impugned is desirable. The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. [GOVIND MATHUR],J.

Pramod

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial