Case Details Back
Department of Digital Technologies and Governance

Zone/ Revenue Division Office : IT Department Circle/ District Head Office : IT Department
Division/ Sub-Division/ Block Office/ In-Office Branch : Litigation Court Level : District
Court Name : District Courts Shimla Case Type Civil Suit
Nature Of Case : Recovery Matters Claim Brief : Civil Suit for Recovery of Rs. 26,14,161/- (Twenty six lacs fourteen thousand one hundred sixty one) along with interest at the rate of 18% from the amount became due till the actual payment of the total amount and for grant of decree of injunction permanent prohibitory in view of the facts. Plaint under Section 26 Order 7 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.
Case Filing Date : 16/08/2022 First Listing Date : 02/09/2022
Receiving Date : 01/09/2022 Reply to be Submitted by Date : 01/01/1900
Previous References (if any) :
Remarks By HOD :
Relief Sought:
Case Status : Pending Department As: Respondent
Case Entered By : Amrita Chauhan Case Entered Date : 01/09/2023
Last Updated By : Amrita Chauhan Last Updated Date : 01/09/2023
Mark as important : No
Huge Financial implications: No Cascading effect : No

 Hearings
--nil--

 Replies Filed
S.No.DepartmentReply in BriefDate of Filing ReplyCopy of ReplyReply Filed By
1 Department of Digital Technologies and Governance
  1. That the plaintiff is having no cause of action to file the present suit against the defendant.
  2. That the defendant/ department is a public authority. Hence, it is mandatory to array State of H.P. as party. Therefore the suit is bad for provision of order 27 rule 5-A CPC and deserves dismissal.
  3. That suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable against the defendant in the present form.
  4. That suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff is claiming two types of amount based upon different cause of action. Both the claim being different cannot be clubbed in a single suit.
  5. That the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit on account of its acts, conducts, deeds etc.
  6. That suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee.
  7. That in the present suit the plaintiff has suppressed the true facts from the Hon’ble Court.
  8. That the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of better particulars. The plaint lacks material particular especially qua claim of damages etc.

 

 		23/05/2023 View Computer Operator