Ghanshyam Hemlata Divya Mandir Society & Ors v. Haridwar Prasad Singh & Anr

Order impugned before this Court is order dated

09.04.2010 vide which application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ' the Code') had been dismissed. The present suit is filed for recovery of ^ 10 lacs as damages for a libel committed by the defendant. Limitation is of one year and the cause of action has been averred in the plaint. Contention in the application before the Trial Court was that the suit is barred by limitation; the signatures of the plaintiff are forged. Contention of the defendant was that Suit No. 502/2003 had was filed as way back on 15.05.1998; the limitation was to commences from there. The Court had rightly adverted to the law in dealing with an application under Order Rule of the Code where averments in the plaint alone have to be seen and not the defence set up by the defendant. Reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had not been filed by the plaintiff yet the contention urged before Court today is that this Suit No. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 502/2003 is in no manner connected with the present proceedings. In this view of the matter, impugned order calls for interference. Petition is without merit; it is dismissed. rb KAUR, J OCTOBER 21, 2011 If Cfi). ^QSohfH $-43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1048/2010 GHANSHYAM HEMLATA DIVYA MANDIR SOCIETY & ORS Petitioners Through: |V|r.Rajiv Talwar and Mr.Nipu Patiri, Advocates. versus HARIDWAR PRASAD SINGH & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.G.B.Sewak and Mr.Chandan Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KAUR ORDER %

14.11.2011 CM NO,20504/2011 (for exemption) in REVIEW PET No,674/2011 Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. REVIEW PET No.674/2011 This is a review petition of the order dated

21.10.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the court and the court has noted that Suit No.502/2003 is in no manner connected with present petition which is not correct factual averment. This Court had noted and observed this in the order dated

21.10.2011 on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent; order impugned before tlie Court in tlie present proceedings was the order dated 09.4.2010 which had dismissed the application of petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reasons have been noted in the aforenoted order. Plaint has again been perused. No ground is made out for review of the order. Dismissed. KAUR, J NOVEMBER 14, 2011 nandan

A-10 % 21.10.2011 Present: Mr. Rajiv Talwar and Mr. Nipu Patiri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.B., Sewak, Advocate for the respondents. + CM(M) NO. 1048/2010 and CM No. 14650/2010 *