Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:code of civil procedure 1908 rule 5 to 8

Oct 20 2003

K.V.K. Amarnath Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma

  • Decided on : 20-Oct-2003

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2004KAR310

... of the Civil Procedure Code to be generally followed - In deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided for in the Act or by these rules, the Court shall as far as possible be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908". (Underlining is mine) The Court -below on noticing that the statement of objections filed by the petitioner - tenant on 5.3 ... of the Act and in so doing it should be guided by the principles of purposive construction. The Court-below misled itself in applying the provision contained in Order 8, Rule 11 C.P.C. disregarding the fact that the petitioner-tenant could have filed the statement of objections only after the copy of the Eviction petition was served on ... or the rules, shall be guided by the provisions contained in the C.P.C. Rule 33 reads: "33. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to be generally followed - In deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided for in the Act or by these rules, the Court shall as far as possible be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908". (Underlining ... Civil Procedure, 1908". (Underlining is mine) The Court -below on noticing that the statement of objections filed by the petitioner - tenant on 5.3.2003 was beyond the 90 days' time prescribed in C.P.C., rejected the statement of objections. The Court-below, in so doing, relied on the decision reported in Dr. J.J. MERCHANT AND ORS. v. SHRINATH CHATURVEDI, 2002 SAR (Civil ...

Aug 07 1985

Ram Singh and Ors. Vs. Ram Singh

  • Decided on : 07-Aug-1985

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1986SC3; 1985(2)SCALE1142; 1985Supp(1)SCC611; [1985]Supp2SCR399

... procedure before the High Court and clause (1) thereof reads thus: "Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be ruled by the High Court, as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits. Order 8 rule 1 to 3 and 5 of the Code of civil Procedure ... rules, if any, made thereunder, every appeal shall be heard and determined by the Supreme Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable to the hearing and determination of an appeal from any final order passed by a High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction; and all the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and the Rules ... fact which ought to have been denied specifically if it was not admitted. Therefore, under 0.8 r. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure which applies to proceedings in election petitions it must be deemed to have been admitted by the respondent. Order 8 rule 5 reads: Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication ... are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and calculated to prejudice a fair trial? If so, whether the same are liable to be struck out under rule 6, order 16 Civil Procedure Code? (8) Whether the respondent himself and/or through his agents and other persons with his consent, committed corrupt practice of undue influence, as alleged in paras 9 ...

Aug 23 1973

Habib Ahmed Khudabax Vs. Abdul Kabur Rehmanji Godiwala and Ors.

  • Decided on : 23-Aug-1973

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1975Bom41; (1974)76BOMLR427; 1974MhLJ812

... down the scope of such right of appeal lies under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In order, therefore, to see whether proviso (I) is attracted in any particular case, one has to turn to the relevant Rent Control Rules i.e. Rules 5,6 and 8, to find out what provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the decrees and orders made under ... . Section 8 of the civil procedure Code , 1908 lays down that saves as provided Code and by the presidency Small Causes not court of Small Causes, provided, however that the High court may direct that any such provision with such modification and adaptation 9 of the small Causes Courts act also empowers the High Court to frame rules and prescribes the procedure to be ... the said rules (Rent Control Rules) would show that if the suit fell under Rule 5(2), the procedure prescribed under the Rules framed under Section 9 of the Presidency small Cause Courts Act, and if the suit fell under Rule 8, the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.'And then the learned Judge proceeded point out that in either case, i.e. whether Rule 5 or Rule 8 applies ... under Rule 5(2), the procedure prescribed under the Rules framed under Section 9 of the Presidency small Cause Courts Act, and if the suit fell under Rule 8, the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.'And then the learned Judge proceeded point out that in either case, i.e. whether Rule 5 or Rule 8 applies the result would be the same as in both the cases procedure ...

Mar 11 1970

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Lalita Kapur

  • Decided on : 11-Mar-1970

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [1970]78ITR126(P& H)

... named either by post or, as if it were a summons issued by a court, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908).'8. The Tribunal was of the opinion that under Order 5, Rules 9 and 12, and Order 3, Rules 2, 3 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, service of summons on an agent of a party is only valid when the appointment of the agent ... such service is to be made on an agent of an assessee, it must be in substance in the same manner as in Order 5, Rules 9 and 12, and Order 3, Rules 2, 3 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure; in other words, an agent without having been appointed by an instrument in writing by the assessee to accept service, cannot accept service ... were sent to her to that address under registered cover, acknowledgement due. The revised notice was sent to her in that manner on that address. It was received on August 8, 1961, by the manager of the Hindustan Forest Company, Ltd., Mr. Nanda, who made an endorsement upon the acknowledgement receipt, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on this ... ,083, for the purposes of income-tax and that figure was accepted by the Income-tax Officer under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).5. On May 1, 1963, the Income-tax Officer proceeded to issue noticeunder Section 274 of Act 43 of 1961, why penalty should not be levied uponthe assessee for having furnished ...

May 23 2006

Kaleeswara Mills Limited (A Unit of National Textile Corporation Tamil ...

  • Decided on : 23-May-2006

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2006)4MLJ419

... 8 Rules 3 and 5(1) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which read as follows:Order 8, Rules 3. DENIAL TO BE SPECIFIC. - It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.5 ... the same. Based on that the learned senior counsel submitted that under Order 8 Rule 5 CPC, since the facts stated in the plaint are not denied they should be taken as admitted. The learned senior counsel referred to paragraph 8 of the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff had met the officers ... the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.31. Rule 3 has to be read with Rule 5. Reading both the rules together, it is clear that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not dealt with specifically and denied expressly ... plaint can be denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleadings of the defendant. The proviso to Rule 5(1) makes it clear that even if an allegation of fact in the plaint is not specifically denied and is taken as admitted, the ... hence they should not be interpreted with meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds. Our laws of procedure are based on the principle that, as far as possible, no proceedings in a court of law should be allowed to be defeated on mere ...

May 17 1988

Mahendra Radio and Television, Meerut and Anr. Vs. State Bank of India ...

  • Decided on : 17-May-1988

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1988All257

... , admission, spoken under Order VIII, Rule 5, is not one on which the plaintiff could rely which would bind the defendant or which creates such right in favour of the plaintiff as to refuse amendment. This does not give rise to the cause of rejecting the amendment. 8. Admission can be by positive ... the plaintiff-respondent urged, under Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C. read with Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act where allegation of fact is not specifically denied in the pleading it should be taken to be admitted Order VIII, Rule 5. C.P.C. is quoted below : -- '5. Specific denial-- (1) Every allegation of ... As aforesaid, Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C. is a guidance for drawing an inference of admission, but proviso to this rule clarifies that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved, otherwise than by such admission. Thus, admission, spoken under Order VIII, Rule 5, is not one on ... regard by the respondent is that the earlier written statement did not specifically deny the averments made in the plaint and thus under Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C. it shall be treated to be admitted, and permitting now to amend the written statement would amount to permitting the defendants to ... contents of paragraphs, are not admitted' is sought to be incorporated. This is sought to be done in consonance with the principle of Order VIII, Rule 5, so that at a later stage while finally adjudicating the issue the suit on account of lack of specific pleading the inference contrary to the ...

May 14 1998

Sapna Singh Pathania Vs. Shri Jagdish Chander Mehta & Ors.

  • Decided on : 14-May-1998

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 4(1998)CLT407; 75(1998)DLT725; (1998)120PLR61

... this order I.A. No. 6479/97 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') of the plaintiffs and I.A. No. 7831/97 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code, of the defendants for vacating the interim order passed on August 1, 1997 ... Rule 4. Under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code a party is expected to expressly deny the facts which are within its knowledge. Denial should be definite and unambiguous. The scope of this provision has been considered by the Supreme Court in Badat & Company Vs . East India Trading Co., : [1964]4SCR19 where after referring to Rules 3,4 and 5 of Order 8 of the Code ... 5,500/- per month up to July, 1997. Present rent will be 3500/- p.m. Electricity for outside room will be paid by the landlord. Sd/-(Sapna Singh) (Rajesh Singh)Dtd. : 28.7.97'16. These facts have not been specifically denied by the plaintiffs in the replication or in reply to defendants' application under Order 39 Rule 4. Under Order 8 Rule 5 ... & Company Vs . East India Trading Co., : [1964]4SCR19 where after referring to Rules 3,4 and 5 of Order 8 of the Code his Lordship Subba Rao, J. observed as under:-'These three rules form an integrated Code dealing with the manner in which allegations of fact in the plaint ... of our knowledge and belief. ....'20. To the similar effect is the verification in the replication. Sub Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 15 of Order 6 of the Code read as under :-'15. Verification of pleadings - (1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time ...

Aug 16 2012

Kailash Nath and Associates and Another Vs. Girdhar Gopal Sureka

  • Decided on : 16-Aug-2012

Court : Mumbai

... the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or at least must set out the reasons based on which the controversy is resolved. We are therefore, of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is totally contrary to Order 8 Rule 5(2) and Rule 10 as also Section 2(9) read with Order 20, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In our view ... Judgment: (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) The Appellants challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18 June 2010 passing a decree against the Appellants under Order 8 Rule 5(2) and Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (a)(i), (a)(ii), (b), (c) and (h) for want of written statement. 2. The present Appellants ... the board of the learned Single Judge on 18 June 2010 for an exparte decree. The learned Single Judge proceeded to pass an exparte decree under Order 8 Rule 5(2) and Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in terms of prayer clauses (a), (a) (i), (a) (ii), (b), (c) and (h) and directed the Court Receiver to hand over possession of the suit premises ... on record and on perusal of such documents, the suit was decreed. Such an exercise is not permissible either under Rule 5 or Rule 10 of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.............. 16. While exercising the powers either under Rule 5 or Rule 10 of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or even under Order 9 thereof against some of the defendants, it is absolutely necessary for the Court to ...

Aug 16 2012

Kailash Nath and Associates and Another Vs. Girdhar Gopal Sureka

  • Decided on : 16-Aug-2012

Court : Mumbai

... the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or at least must set out the reasons based on which the controversy is resolved. We are therefore, of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is totally contrary to Order 8 Rule 5(2) and Rule 10 as also Section 2(9) read with Order 20, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In our view ... Judgment: (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) The Appellants challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18 June 2010 passing a decree against the Appellants under Order 8 Rule 5(2) and Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (a)(i), (a)(ii), (b), (c) and (h) for want of written statement. 2. The present Appellants ... the board of the learned Single Judge on 18 June 2010 for an exparte decree. The learned Single Judge proceeded to pass an exparte decree under Order 8 Rule 5(2) and Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in terms of prayer clauses (a), (a) (i), (a) (ii), (b), (c) and (h) and directed the Court Receiver to hand over possession of the suit premises ... on record and on perusal of such documents, the suit was decreed. Such an exercise is not permissible either under Rule 5 or Rule 10 of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.............. 16. While exercising the powers either under Rule 5 or Rule 10 of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or even under Order 9 thereof against some of the defendants, it is absolutely necessary for the Court to ...

Dec 12 2005

Smita Arvinda Apte and Anr. Vs. Ajay Pandurang Potdar

  • Decided on : 12-Dec-2005

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR505; 2006(3)BomCR687; 2006(2)MhLj509

... 2004(6)BomCR434 , whereby, while considering the amended provisions of Civil Procedure Code and specifically Order 5, Rule 1 and Order 8, Rule 1, a Single Judge of this Bombay High Court has observed, that when a suit was instituted prior to 1-7-2002, provisions of Order 5, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by Act of 22 of 2002 would not apply ... instituted prior to 1-7-2002, provisions of Order 5, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by Act of 22 of 2002 would not apply. It is further observed that the requirement of filing written statement within 30 days in terms of amended provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 also would not apply in such case. The ... Civil Procedure Code has expressed that the Court has power in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to use the discretion and to grant such extension of time. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties further strongly relied on the decision in Ujwala Athare (Patil) v. Asha Ravindra Paranjape : 2004(6)BomCR434 , whereby, while considering the amended provisions of Civil Procedure Code and specifically Order 5, Rule 1 and Order 8, Rule ... Chintaman Sukhdeo Kaklij and Ors. v. Shivaji Bhausaheb Gadhe and Ors. : 2004(5)BomCR573 .3. The Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India 2005(6) Scale, 26 while, considering various aspects of Amendment Act, 1999, to the Civil Procedure Code has expressed that the Court has power in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //