Dr. Bhupendra Kumar R Parikh v. Dilip Kumar R Parkh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE A.No.7112 of 2015 in C.S. No.558 of 2015 1.Dilip Kumar R.Parikh Door No.G1, Plot No.18, Shirdi Sai Apartments, 6 th Cross Street, Prakash Nagar, Tiruninravur, Chennai-602024.

2.Mrs.Devika R.Parikh K 505, brigade Metropolis K R Puram Whitefield Road, Mahadevpura, Bangalore-560 048.

3.Mr.Bhavesh K.Parikh 136-139, C7 Blue Mont Aprt.

EVR Periyar Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

..Plaintiffs -Versus1.Dr.Bhupendra Kumar R.Parikh, No.26, South Mada Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005.

2.Mr.Rajesh K.Parikh C-206, Oberoi Springs, Near Monginis Cake Factory, Opp. City Mall, Oshiwara Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053.

3.Mrs.Malti J Parikh 4.Mr.Mehul J Parikh 1 Dickinson Road, Kendall Park, N J 08824, United States of America 5.Ms.Archana J Parikh 11520 Parsipanny Terrance, Gaithersburg, MD 20878 United States of America.

.. Defendants A.No.7112 of 2015:

1.Dr.Bhupendra Kumar R.Parikh, No.26, South Mada Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005.

... Applicant VS.

1.Dilip Kumar R.Parikh Door No.G1, Plot No.18, Shirdi Sai Apartments, 6 th Cross Street, Prakash Nagar, Tiruninravur, Chennai-602024.

2.Mrs.Devika R.Parikh K 505, Brigade Metropolis K R Puram Whitefield Road, Bangalore-560 048.

3.Mr.Bhavesh K.Parikh 136-139, C7 Blue Mont Aprt.

EVR Periyar Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

4.Mr.Rajesh K.Parikh C-206, Oberoi Springs, Near Monginis Cake Factory, Opp. City Mall, Oshiwara Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053.

5.Mrs.Malti J Parikh 1 Dickinson Road, Kendall Park, N J 08825, United States of America 6.Mr.Mehul J Parikh 1 Dickinson Road, Kendall Park, N J 08825, United States of America 7.Ms.Archana J Parikh 11520 Parsipanny Terrance, Gaithersburg, MD 20878 USA.

.. Respondents Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Reject the plaint U/o VII R 11 of CPC read with Sec 151 of CPC with exemplary cost.

This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing, the court made the following order:- This suit is laid for partition. The 1 st defendant has taken out this application.

The 1 st defendant appears as a party-in-person. He did not appear either in the virtual mode, or physically before this Court today.

2.The present application is taken out by him for rejection of plaint and this Court has an advantage of perusing his affidavit filed in support of the application. The entire reading of the affidavit only informs the Court that he seems to take certain exception to what he terms as contradiction in the pleadings, and his primary prayer is to initiate action for contempt of Court. 3.The application is terribly misconceived. Not one aspect which the 1 st defendant / applicant has raised in paragraphs 1 to 6 of his affidavit satisfy any of the requirements of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C, and if the Court has to initiate action for contempt of Court, that can be only on an allegation of the violation of the order of the Court, but no such order has been projected in the affidavit. Alternatively contempt can be initiated if there is an obstruction to the cause of justice which is

essentially a criminal contempt. Here the party has got very very limited role. 4.This application is now an obstruction to the further progress of the litigation. Hence, this application is dismissed. No cost. Sd./-NSSJ 16/12/2021 //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.