PREET INDER SINGH Vs. GURSHARNA KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 13.7.2010, and by which judgment, the Trial Court dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(2.) AT the outset, I must state that merely because the Trial Court has dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, would not mean that if otherwise the judgment is correct on merits, the appeal would be allowed merely because of wrong provision of law is noted. In my opinion, in the present case what the Trial Court has done is that it has applied the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC by taking the admitted facts as appearing from the pleadings and documents filed by the parties and thereafter has proceeded to dismiss the suit. It is settled law that the heading or the provision which is referred to is not material, as long as there is a correct provision in law under which the powers can be exercised.

(3.) BY the impugned judgment, the suit has been dismissed firstly relying upon the compromise decree between the parties dated 9.4.2007, as per which decree, the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was granted possession of the suit property. Secondly, the Trial Court has referred to judicial admissions made by the appellant/defendant, i.e. admissions made in pleadings in a case which was filed against the appellant/plaintiff by his wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and has dismissed the suit relying on such judicial admissions. The Trial Court has also ultimately held that frivolous litigation should not be allowed to be continued at the whims and fancies of a chronic litigant resulting in miscarriage of justice.