Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1297 - HC - Indian LawsDismissal of application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC on 3.3.2011 - seeking relief of declaration in respect of easement of necessity and easement by grant and also permanent injunction - HELD THAT:- It is well settled law that a rightly concluded order based upon wrong reasons cannot be upset or reversed only because the reasons are incorrect. Therefore, it will have to be seen whether the statements made by the respondent No. 1 in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute, show that the suit is barred by any law in force. From the law laid down in the cases of Popat and Kotecha Property [2005 (8) TMI 691 - SUPREME COURT] and Devi Singh [1972 (7) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT], it is clear that while deciding an application under Rule 11(d), Order 7 CPC, Court cannot go beyond the averments made in the plaint and cannot decide the disputed questions of facts or law at that stage. In the instant case, the dispute between the parties is about illegally blocking the suit road providing access to the suit property. Respondent No. 1 is claiming easement of necessity and easement by grant in respect of suit road and it is it's case that same is being denied to it - merely on the basis of statements made in the plaint, it cannot be said that section 52-A GID Act was applicable and its requirements ought to have been fulfilled before filing of the suit. The plaint, therefore, could not have been rejected under Rule 11(d), Order 7 of the CPC. There are no illegality nor any perversity in the impugned order. It does not call for any interference. Point is answered accordingly. CRA, therefore, stands dismissed.
|