Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Calcutta High Court held that the trial court erred in considering extraneous documents regarding Thika Tenancy, as the defendants had not pleaded such defenses in their written statement.
Calcutta High Court stated that “Order VII, Rule 11 is applicable to the plaint which does not disclose cause of action and not the cases where the plea is non-existence of cause of action.”
“When damages have been paid for unlawful use of land then plaintiff, being a wrong doer, cannot claim equitable relief for wrongful use of such land, in respect of which he has no right, title, interest.”
Calcutta High Court held that the court’s jurisdiction is limited in extending time for depositing rent, and it cannot go beyond the provisions of the law.
The Calcutta High Court noted that the amendment did not change the suit’s nature fundamentally and would not cause undue prejudice to the petitioner.
The Calcutta High Court upheld legislative competence to confer jurisdiction on Presidency Small Cause Court, considering the specific language of Section 12A excluding jurisdiction of any other court.
“Even if there are certain clauses which the parties may have aided from the tenancy legislation, is no ground to … declare the unambiguous leave and licence agreement to be an agreement of tenancy ignoring preponderance of probability.”
The Calcutta High Court stated that the terms of the e-auction notice explicitly stated the conditions of the sale, including the forfeiture clause in case of non-compliance by the bidder.
“A respondent without filing cross objection can canvass the correctness of finding against him in order to support the judgment that has been passed against the appellant.”
“By the Civil Procedure Code (amendment Act, 1999) the scope of Section 115 of the code has been curtailed but that does not mean that due to such curtailment, the High court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 has been expanded.”
The first appellate court’s decision to set aside the ex-parte decree and remand the case was seen as unnecessary and not in line with the purpose of Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC.
Calcutta High Court stressed the importance of ensuring that the complaint is not false, vexatious, or intended to harass the accused.
When evaluating an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court should determine whether the suit is barred by law based on the allegations in the plaint taken as true.
Calcutta High Court remanded the eviction case to First Appellate Court on finding that the alleged construction was outside the tenancy property.