” Rejects Delay Beyond Limitation Period Under Order VII Rule 11(d) and Article 113 of Limitation Act

Home - " Rejects Delay Beyond Limitation Period Under Order VII Rule 11(d) and Article 113 of Limitation Act

Posted inNews

Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside Appellate Court Decree Granting Possession in Ancestral Property Dispute—”The burden to prove self-acquired property lies on the person who asserts such acquisition.”

Court’s Decision The Chhattisgarh High Court, in SA No. 378 of 1992, allowed the second appeal preferred by the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1992 passed…

Posted by

Rawlaw June 17, 2025

Posted inNews

Supreme Court Rules Second Suit for Specific Performance Barred by Limitation: “Right to Sue Stood Extinguished,” Rejects Delay Beyond Limitation Period Under Order VII Rule 11(d) and Article 113 of Limitation Act

Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the Madras High Court and the trial court, ruling that the second suit filed in 2007 for specific performance was barred…

Posted by

Rawlaw January 8, 2025

Recent News

Bombay High Court Restores Consumer Commission’s Order Holding Bank Liable for Fraud: “Illiterate Widow Wrongfully Deprived of Compensation — Bank’s Negligence Cannot Be Overlooked” strengthens consumer protection jurisprudence by safeguarding vulnerable depositors, especially illiterate individuals.
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition by Educational Trust for Defying Reinstatement Orders: “Willful Disobedience of Judicial Orders Cannot Be Tolerated”
Karnataka High Court: Refundable Security Deposit under Lease Not Liable for Stamp Duty — “Refundable Security Deposit Does Not Constitute Money Advanced in Addition to Rent”
Karnataka High Court Quashes Murder Conspiracy Case: “No Purpose Will Be Served in Continuing Prosecution When All Witnesses Have Turned Hostile”
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Against Bank’s Recovery Notice — “Article 226 Cannot Be Invoked to Challenge a Private Legal Notice”

Scroll to Top