9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Rejection of plaint in part, competency of revision petition, nature of the note as an interlocutory order, jurisdiction of the trial court, remittance of the case for decision on merits. Analysis: The plaintiffs filed a suit against a firm for recovery of a certain amount. The trial court framed five issues, and under issue 4, it noted that the claim for interest was not supported by the plaint's cause of action, leading to a partial rejection of the plaint. The plaintiffs then filed a revision petition challenging this decision, arguing that the court had no authority to reject the plaint in part. The court addressed a preliminary objection stating that the note recorded by the trial court did not amount to a formal rejection of the plaint as per the Civil Procedure Code, making a revision the appropriate remedy in this case. The court further discussed the nature of the note as an interlocutory order and concluded that it effectively decided the plaintiffs' claim regarding interest, making it subject to revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment highlighted the absence of provisions for partial rejection of a plaint, deeming the trial court's action as illegal and irregular. Consequently, the court decided to delete the note, remit the case to the trial court for a decision on the merits, and allowed for possible amendments to the pleadings or framing of additional issues as necessary. In a concurring opinion, another judge agreed with the decision to remit the case for adjudication on the merits. The judgment dismissed the appeal, accepted the petition for revision, and directed each party to bear their own costs for both the appeal and the revision petition.
|
