Skip to content


Options Dock ▼

Judgment Search Results Home > Search Phrase: code of civil procedure 1908 rule 5 to 8 Page 1 of about 324,887 results (0.890 seconds)

Feb 20 2001 (HC)

Jalal and Sons and Another Vs. Sita Bai (Died) by Lrs. and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(2)ALD547; 2001(2)ALT683

..... facts need not be proved and this principle applies to 'will' also. he placed reliance on sections 58 and 68 of the evidence act as well as order 8, rules 3 and 5 of code of civil procedure, 1908 ('cpccpccpc' for brevity), in the absence of any specific pleading denying the execution by sita bai bequeathing suit premises in favour of petitioners 3 and 4 in the pleadings ..... date on which the judgment was pronounced.24. in duwada nandesam chowdaiy . state of a.p., 1964 (2) an.wr 95, dealing vim rules 3 and 5 of order 8 this court aid down as under.'rules 3 and 5 of order 8 civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, have to be read together and that a plea that the defendant does not admit any of the allegations in the plaint except ..... case. in any event, section 68 of the evidence act cannot be read in isolation and having regard to section 58 of the evidence act as well as order 8, rules 3 and 5 of cpccpccpc, the tenant is deemed to have admitted the execution of the will.22. the tenant has not denied the execution of the will specifically. he only said petitioners ..... the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.'30. therefore, having regard to the provisions of sections 58 and 68 of the evidence act, rules 3 and 5 of order 8 of cpccpccpc and the decided cases, and also having regard to the fact that the tenant did not dispute or demur at the stage of bringing legal representatives on record .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2006 (HC)

Ram Ujagar Yadava Son of Late Sri Ram Rup Yadava Vs. the State of U.P. ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2006(4)AWC3398

..... correct drawing the presumption in favour of the petitioner in terms of section 114 illustration (g) of the evidence act, 1872 and order 8 rule 5 of the code of civil procedure, 1908. the absence of counter affidavit, this court is left with no option but to accept the averments made in the petition to be correct ..... is not due to definite injury, the authority competent to sanction leave may, at its discretion, secure a second medical opinion by requesting the civil surgeon to have the applicant physically examined. should it decide to do so, it must arrange for the second medical examination to be made on ..... also referred to rule 73 of chapter x of the said fundamental rules and rules 381 and 382 of chapter xxviii of the u.p. police regulations and rule 4 and 8 of u.p. police officer of the subordinate ranks (punishment and appeal) rules 1991. the aforesaid rules are quoted below:chapter ix- rule 95. an ..... minor punishment, in the case of bhagwan lal arya v. commissioner of police, delhi and anr. reported in : air2004sc2131 , wherein the delinquent was dismissed under section 147 of delhi police act (34 of 1978)- and rules 8, 10 of delhi police (punishment and appeal, rules 1980), from service, on the ground of absence from ..... in the interest of the security of the state it is not expedient to hold such enquiry. 8. learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in the case of l/nk musafir yadav v. commandant 47 bn. c.r.p.f., gandhi nagar (gujarat) reported in (2001) 3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 2006 (HC)

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

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2006)4MLJ419

..... the defendant has not placed legal position clearly.30. in this context, it will be useful to refer to order 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 ..... written statement, it has not specifically denied the same. based on that the learned senior counsel submitted that under order 8 rule 5 cpccpccpc, since the facts stated in the plaint are not denied they should be taken as admitted. the learned senior counsel referred to paragraph ..... 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 ..... a 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 ..... 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1993 (HC)

Bhavani Builders Vs. State Bank of India

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1993)95BOMLR862

..... of the code of civil procedure, 1908 gives a wide discretion to the judge in the matters of non-filing of the written statement, whereas such a discretion is not there so far as the ..... rule 21 of order viii lays down that if the court feels that defendant's request to get the suit ..... that the discretion is granted to the court. rule 21 gives liberty to the plaintiff to get the suit set down for judgment, and asks the court to pass the judgment. but this rule is qualified by other provisions of the code and will have to be read along with order viii, rule 5 and rule 13 of the code of civil procedure, 1908. the use of the word 'shall' in ..... code of civil procedure, 1908. according to shri deshmukh, these three provisions, if read together, make it obligatory for the court to pass a decree in terms of the counter-claim, if a reply within the stipulated time of four weeks is not filed by the plaintiff to the counter-claim filed by the defendant. shri deshmukh also submits that the language of order viii, rule 5 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 2012 (HC)

Kailash Nath and Associates and Another Vs. Girdhar Gopal Sureka

Court : Mumbai

..... 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 ..... oral 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 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 ..... 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 2012 (HC)

Kailash Nath and Associates and Another Vs. Girdhar Gopal Sureka

Court : Mumbai

..... 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 ..... oral 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 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 ..... 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1987 (HC)

John Richard Brady and ors. Vs. Chemical Process Equipments P. Ltd. an ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1987Delhi372

..... paragraph 7 of the plaint. there is no specific denial to this plea of the plaintiffs. by virtue of order 8, rule 5 of the code of civil procedure 1908, this plea has to be taken to be admitted by the defendants. so far as the applicability of the provisions ..... least a form of property, is enforceable at law. that statement may now be examined in the light of established. rules making up the law of trade secrets. these rules may, according to the circumstances in any given case, either rest on the principles of equity, that is to say ..... fpu)manufactured by the defendants, or on theirbehalf, without the consent, permission andauthorisation from the plaintiffs. thedefendants described the machine producedby them as 'pushti'.5. it is alleged that the machine produced by the defendants is entirely based upon disclosures made by plaintiffs, to the defendants. they committed breach of ..... whereby defendant no. 1agreed to supply the specialised thermalpanels required by the plaintiffs, terms andconditions of the agreement were set out in aletter dated 31-8-84 written by defendantno. 1 to plaintiff no. 3. later, plaintiffsdiscovered the inability of the defendants tosupply the required thermal panels, so, theydid ..... in respect of such know-how and fails to do so. all these hypotheses fall within the general rules of equity and breach of confidence propounded in the leading saltman case, saltman engineering co. v. cambell engineering co. (1948) rfc 203. the facts, as far as they matter here, were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 2007 (HC)

The Principal Collector of Customs and the Union of India (Uoi) Throug ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR477; 2008(1)BomCR494; 2007(6)MhLj225

..... matters originate from the order dated 21st march, 1997 passed in suit no.3037 of 1991 by the learned single judge purportedly exercising the powers under order 8 rule 5 and/or 10 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 while disposing the suit.4. in the year 1988, the respondent no.1 sought to import from u.s. and japan photographic machineries under tariff item ..... 2003, the same is against the decree passed on 21st march, 1997. the decree is purportedly passed in exercise of the powers under order 8 rule 5 and/or 10 of the code of civil procedure.6. order 8 rule 5(1) of the code of civil procedure provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in ..... . apparently, therefore, the impugned order disposing the suit by no stretch of imagination can be said to be either under rule 5 or rule 10 of order 8 of the code of civil procedure.11. disposal of a suit, either under rule 5 or rule 10 of order 8, has essentially to be based on the facts disclosed in the plaint. the impugned order nowhere discloses consideration of the facts ..... therefore, there was no occasion for the learned single judge to dispose of the suit only against the appellants.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 ascertain whether there is an independent cause .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2014 (HC)

Rajrani Garg and Another Vs. Naveen Garg and Others

Court : Delhi

..... is not specific or evasive then allegation made in the plaint shall be deemed to have been admitted. this rule is known as doctrine of non traverse embodied in order viii rule 5 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 and is applicable where the material averment made in the plaint is not specifically denied by the defendant in ..... be passed under order 12 rule 6 cpccpccpc. reading of the provision and the law laid down show that the admission need not be only in the pleadings, but it can be either ..... rate of rent should be over rs.3,500/-; and (iii) the tenancy should have been validly terminated.18. a bare reading of order xii rule 6 cpccpccpc would show that the intention and purpose of the legislature was not to prolong the trial, however, in case of any admission a decree was to ..... view of the act .17. upon considering judgments rendered by the high court, it can be held that while dealing with an application under order xii rule 6 cpccpccpc relating to a suit for possession three factors must be satisfied by the landlord: (i) the landlord tenant relationship should not be disputed; (ii) the ..... was observed in the case of rajiv sharma and another vs. rajiv gupta, reported at (2004) 72 drj540 that the purpose of order xii rule 6 of the cpccpccpc is to enable the party to obtain speedy justice to the extent of relevant admission, which according to the admission, if the other party is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2001 (TRI)

Ashok Kaicker and anr. Vs. Amblee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC)

..... applicants, the respondent no. 1 neither filed a written statement denying the allegations, nor even entered appearance in the court.therefore, in terms of provisions contained in order viii rule 5 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, the allegations made in the compensation application can be deemed to have been admitted by the respondent no.1. further, it is borne out from record that a purchase ..... evidence despite adequate oppoortunities given. in these circumstances, the right of respondent no. 2 to file evidence was also closed. ex-parte arguments were finally heard on 15th may, 2001.8. we have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and have also perused the documents and other evidence on record.9. it is evident from ..... which the responsibility to comply with the various populations made in the agreement was put entirely on the respondent no. 1 who was the owner of the resorts in question.5. the claim regarding the affiliation of respondent no. 1 with rci india pvt. ltdv also proved untrue when the latter informed the applicants vide letter dated 11th april, 1997 that ..... pvt. ltd. 3. the applicant deposited a total amount of rs. 1,55,789/- through cheque which include membership fee of rs. 1,45,509/- and administration fee of rs. 8,820/-. the respondent no. 2 issued a receipt for the said amount on 13.12.1994. for the membership of 'amblee holiday resorts' a purchase agreement was also duly signed .....

Tag this Judgment!

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