Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Act:CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Rule 5 to 8 -

Jul 27 2009

Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade P. Ltd. Vs. AMCI (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr ...

  • Decided on : 27-Jul-2009

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2010(1)AWC176(SC); JT2009(12)SC519; 2009(6)KarLJ576; (2010)8MLJ1155(SC); 2009(11)SCALE371:2009AIRSCW6395

... Civil Procedure Code which apply to such proceedings in so far as they could be made applicable. Rule 4 will have to read with Rule 12 which deals with 'Applicability of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908'. It reads as under:Subject to what is provided for in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and these Rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Karnataka Civil Rules ... . He also contended that Rule 4(b) of the Rules requires an application under Section 34 of the Act, to be dealt with and decided as a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore it is obligatory for the court to frame issues in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.5. On the other hand, ... Rule 12 which deals with 'Applicability of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908'. It reads as under:Subject to what is provided for in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and these Rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice may be applied to the proceedings under the Act to the extent considered necessary or appropriated by the court of Judicial Authority. Rule ... Civil Procedure Code, 1908'. It reads as under:Subject to what is provided for in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and these Rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice may be applied to the proceedings under the Act to the extent considered necessary or appropriated by the court of Judicial Authority. Rule 12 makes it clear that the provisions of Code ...

May 26 1998

Jotiba Ningappa Patil Vs. The Competent Authority, Belgaum Urban Agglo ...

  • Decided on : 26-May-1998

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ485

... section (3) of Section 8 is very clear. Now in what manner the notice shall be served is to be prescribed by the Rules. Rule 5(1) provides particulars to be contained in draft statement as regards vacant lands and manner of service of the same. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 reads as under:'5(2)(a) The ... the Act and that Act conferring that power prescribes the mode and procedure for the exercise thereof then that power of jurisdiction has to be exercised only in accordance with that manner and procedure as prescribed by the Act and Rules thereunder. 7. In this view of the matter, I am of the ... by the Rules. Rule 5(1) provides particulars to be contained in draft statement as regards vacant lands and manner of service of the same. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 reads as under:'5(2)(a) The draft statement shall be served together with the notice referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 8 on- (i) ... 8(3) of the Act and the Rule 5(2). Service of notice cannot be said to be sufficient service, eventhough the Gazette notification under Section 4 or 6 of the Act has been published, as purpose of that notification is distinct from service of individual notice under Section 8(2) and 8(3) of the Act and the Rule 5(2)(a) of the Rules ... the petitioner in the matter and passed the order impugned viz., order dated 19-8-1980 in case No. RB/ULC/D/SR/2560 and the order is illegal being breach of Section 42 of the Act and Rule 5 thereto.4. Learned Counsel contended that in accordance with these provisions service of ...

Nov 18 2005

Mr. Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab Vs. Mr. Kumar and Ors.

  • Decided on : 18-Nov-2005

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC396; 2006(1)ALT1(SC); 2006(1)AWC529(SC); 2006(1)BomCR57; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN70; 101(2006)CLT464(SC); [2006(1)JCR112(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC1; 2006(1)MhLj178; (2006)1MLJ

... the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 (in short the 1999 'Amendment Act'). Factual background needs to be noted in brief.3. In a suit for partition, separate possession and perpetual injunction the appellants were arrayed as defendant Nos. 15 & 1. The suit filed by respondent No. 1 was Special Civil Suit No. 144 of ... is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried.8. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of ... injunction the appellants were arrayed as defendant Nos. 15 & 1. The suit filed by respondent No. 1 was Special Civil Suit No. 144 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Latoor. The appellants were summoned under Order V Rule 1 & 5 CPC on 21st October, 2003. They sought time to file the Written Statement and by order dated 29th October, ... Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 (in short the 1999 'Amendment Act'). Factual background needs to be noted in brief.3. In a suit for partition, separate possession and perpetual injunction the appellants were arrayed as defendant Nos. 15 & 1. The suit filed by respondent No. 1 was Special Civil Suit No. 144 of 2003 in the Court of Civil ...

Jul 17 2005

Mahendra Ram Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Jul-2005

Court : Patna

... petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity) and after his appearance the defendant-petitioner was directed by the Court to file his show cause by 16-8-2001, whereafter ... 5-2001 and appeared in the suit on 2-6-2001. Further contention of the defendant-petitioner counsel was that before defendant's appearance in the suit the plaintiff had filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code ... rule is a procedural provision and hence it will be effective in the suit instituted prior to coming into force of Amending Act of 2002. Hence, he has submitted that admittedly the defendant petitioner had received notice of the suit on 3-5-2001, but he did not file any written statement immediately after 1-7-2002 on which date the Code of Civil Procedure ... 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the plaintiff opposite party has contended that as per the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code, the Court had no jurisdiction to accept the written statement filed after lapse of 90 days from the date of service of notice by the defendant concerned. He has further averred that the said rule is a procedural ... in : AIR2005Pat136 in which it was held that the amended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code has to be construed as directory and not mandatory as it is a procedural law meant for expediting the hearing and not for scuttling it.12. ...

Feb 26 1957

Mahadeo and Ors. Vs. Shantilal and Ors.

  • Decided on : 26-Feb-1957

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1957Bom170; (1957)59BOMLR718; ILR1957Bom623

... insolvent judgment-debtor had vested did not entitle the executing Court to sell the judgment-debtors' property without issuing notice to the official assignee under Section 248, Civil Procedure Code, 1882 (which corresponds to Order 21, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, 1908) to show cause why the property should not be sold. It must, however, be remembered that the decree being executed was a money decree and there ... here, a final decree is passed on a mortgage in the presence of the judgment-debtor whereby the mortgaged property is directed by the Court under Order 34, Rule 5(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to be sold, the judgment-debtor dies thereafter and his legal representatives who have been substituted in his place have been served with the sale notice, and have ... observed: 'It is possible that the notice might be upheld as a proper notice preliminary to adding the official assignee as a party under Section 32 (corresponding to Order 1, Rules 8, 10 and 11) if that section were applicable but in order 'to bind a party added under that section, he has, after being added, to he served with a ... suggested that any such summons was served. Similarly, it is not suggested that any order to carry on proceedings was obtained under Section 372, (which corresponds to Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, 1908)'. Their Lordships have then set out thus what actually happened in the case before them:'Having obtained leave in that behalf, the respondents proceeded to serve the notice in ...

Sep 21 2005

Anil Kushabrao Phutane Vs. Madhukar Kushabrao Phutane and Ors.

  • Decided on : 21-Sep-2005

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2006Bom1; 2006(1)ALLMR555; 2006(1)BomCR786; 2006(1)MhLj369

... on the application (Exh.31) in Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 2003 rejecting the application seeking permission to file written statement.6. The learned trial Court and the learned Single Judge found that the mandate in the time schedule prescribed in Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (in short, 'the ... filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code is not completely taken away.19. Our High Court in : 2004(5)BomCR573 , Chintaman Sukhdeo Kaklij and Ors. v. Shivaji Bhausaheb Gadhe and Ors. considered the same issue as regards interpretation of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Amendment Act of 2002. In fact, the diverged opinions ... that, after the earlier application was rejected, the appellant filed another application on 1-9-2004 seeking permission to accept written statement that was filed by the appellant on 8-4-2004. In that application, the appellant has elaborately stated the reasons as to why there was delay in filing written statement and further as to how the ... of 90 days, even bearing in mind the mandate under Order VIII, Rule 1. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent submitted that the trial Court rightly rejected the application and refused to accept the written statement filed by the appellant.9. The Civil Procedure Code enacted in 1908 has undergone several amendments keeping in view recommendations of Law Commission. ...

Dec 08 1980

Nedduri Konda Reddy Vs. Maddirala Chennaiah

  • Decided on : 08-Dec-1980

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1981AP313

... persons could move in the matter. In the absence then of any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for the case of persons of unsound mind who have not been adjudged to be so under the Act, we must adopt the rule which prevails in English Courts and provide for the protection of the lunatic defendant by ... , it will cause injustice to persons who are found to be of unsound mind or mentally infirm. In fact this is implicit when we read other rules.5. Order 32. Rule 3 (3) C. P. C. provides that where the defendant is a minor, the Court on being satisfied by the fact of his minority, shall ... observed that when the Court on enquiry finds a defendant incapable of protecting his interests, it can appoint a guardian even during the pendency of the suit.8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rami Reddi v. Papi Reddi. : AIR1963AP160 and D. Paoi Reddy v. D. Rami Reddi. : AIR1969AP362 in support of his ... friend. The second case is a sequel to the first case. It was held that the scope of enquiry under Order 32. Rule 15. C. P. C. had to be only limited for the procedural purpose, that is to say to (five proper representation to the plaintiff, if he is found to be insane or ... limited for the procedural purpose, that is to say to (five proper representation to the plaintiff, if he is found to be insane or minor on the date when, the suit was instituted, and the enquiry was not expected to travel beyond that limited purpose, and any order passed under that rule does not finally ...

Jul 14 2005

M.V. Prasad Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

  • Decided on : 14-Jul-2005

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : IV(2005)ACC671; 2005(5)ALT7

... Rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 of Order VI of the First Schedule as omitted or, as the case may be, inserted or substituted by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) and by Section 7 of this Act shall not apply to in respect of any pleading filed before the commencement of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure ... well as other witnesses. Hence, the petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any prejudice because of this amendment.8. So far as the second aspect, viz. the plea as to territorial jurisdiction, is concerned, it is untenable, in ... Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) and by Section 7 of this Act shall not apply to in respect of any pleading filed before the commencement of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) and Section 7 of this Act.'A perusal of the provision discloses that the restrictions placed on amendment, through Rule ... Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (for short 'the Amendment Act'). According to him, the application is not maintainable, in view of the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The trial court allowed the I.A.4. Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the bar imposed under Rule ... would have arisen, if only a corresponding pleading was filed by the petitioner. In fact, the situation attracts Rule 9 of Order 8. Even assuming that the present effort was only to bring about amendment to the existing pleading, one part of ...

Dec 02 2004

Ram Saran Vs. Smt. Khazani

  • Decided on : 02-Dec-2004

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(1)ARC397; 2005(1)AWC850

... Civil Procedure Code the suit would be deemed to have been instituted on the date the plaint was presented, namely, on 20.5.2002 and as such the provisions of the unamended Civil Procedure Code were applicable and consequently the Court had discretion to extend the time for filing the written statement without limit and the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code as amended by the Civil Procedure Code ... below applying the provisions' of Order VIII, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. The plaint was presented on 20.5.2002 but it is not in dispute that the full court fee was not then paid. The suit was registered on 27.8.2002 after payment of court fee on that very day. The amendments by the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act 22 of 2001 had come ... 2433 (SC) : AIR 2002 SC 248.5. The consequence of applying Section 149, Civil Procedure Code is that the suit would be deemed to have been presented on 20.5.2002. However, it is clear from the fact that before the suit was registered the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code had become applicable. Order V, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the summons will ... amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code had become applicable. Order V, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the summons will be issued in a duly instituted suit. No doubt the suit would be deemed to have been duly instituted for the purpose of limitation on 20.5.2002 but no summons could have been issued in fact on 20.5.2002 because ...

Jan 09 1961

Mehar Singh and Anr. Vs. Kasturi Ram and Ors.

  • Decided on : 09-Jan-1961

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1962P& H394

... application is situated then he can get the relief required by him in a satisfactory manner by following the procedure laid down in sections 39 to 42 and Order 21, rule 5 to Order 21, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. It is true that this procedure laid down in these previsions is rather an indirect one and it has been described in many cases as ... Civil Procedure Code, then the decreeing Court can execute the decree although a portion of the immovable property is situated outside its jurisdiction. The provisions contained in Order 21, Rule 3 and O. 21, R. 48, Civil Procedure Code, are other exceptions to this general0. It is, however, not necessary to deal exhaustively with these exceptions as in the present case we are not concerned with them.(8 ... Civil Procedure Code, the Court which originally passed the decree does not cases to be the decreeing Court even when the subject-matter of the decree has been subsequently transferred to the jurisdiction of another Court. Now the general principle of law is that no Court can execute a decree when its subject-matter is situated outside its local jurisdiction. As a general rule ... in fact passed the decrees. The decision of this question rests on the construction of certain statutory provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant provisions are Secs. 37, 38, 39 and 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I reproduce them below:'Section 37. The expression 'Court which passed a decree', or words to that effect, shall, in relation ...

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