Considering the fact that the wrong reply has been filed, the request of replacing the same is acceded too.
The petitioners have challenged the order passed below Exh.36 in Special Civil Suit No.461 of 2008 dated 16.8.2011, whereby the court has exercised the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, while rejecting the plaint of the present petitioners - original plaintiffs relying essentially on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of G. Sekar v. Geetha & Ors., reported in AIR 2009 SC 2649.
The learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. N. K. Majmudar urged that the aspect whether partition has been effected of the properties between the family members or not, is a question of fact which cannot be gone into at the time of deciding the application for injunction or at an interim stage and the recording of evidence is must, for which he seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kamla v. K. T. Eshwara Sa, reported in AIR 2008 SC 317.
Notice, returnable on 19.3.2012.
(MS.
SONIA GOKANI, J.) (vipul) Top