This is not a fictitious question. But a real scenario........
Cause of Action although mentioned in the petition, it is contradicted by the Petitioner in the Petition itself.
Cause of action is negated and contradicted (if Hon Court agrees to draw such inference accordingly) in the Petition itself.
This fact is already raised and brought to notice of the Hon Court, by the Respondent, at the time of 'framing of issues' and made request formally to draw such 'inference' to the Hon Court.
The Respondent's plea is that there is "no major issues" to be tried.... for the reasons that respondent didn't get opportunity to deny that fact because petitioner itself has denied it before respondent could do so!!!
Should the Hon Court just reject the plaint? ......or
should the Hon Court dismiss the plaint with prejudice against the petitioner? because the Respondent is felt harrased by the whole suit and seek damages also.
In such a case, If the Petitioner's case is already become weaker due to above, Should the Hon Court go ahead with the trial and decide on each remaining issue (Order 20 Rule 5) which are of secndary nature n the case?
The Petitioner is trying to stretch the case even after this happening as above
What are the pro and cons?
