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!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR431
..... 1955 - sections 12(1), 12(2) and 23; civil procedure code, 1908 - order 8, rule 5; indian evidence act - section 58cases referred: motabhoy mulla essabhoy v. mulji haridas, air 1915 pc 2, 42 ind app 103; john over v. muriel a.i. over, air 1925 bom 231, 27 bom lr 251; robinson v. robinson and lane, (1858) 1 sw and tr 362 ..... no doubt s. 45 provides that subject to the provisions herein contained, all proceedingsa under this act between party and party shall be regulated by the code of civil procedure. but that provision, in my opinion, does not overrride the express directions in ss. 7, 12, 13 and 14 to which i have already ..... alluded.'this was under the indian divorce act, 1869.the reason of the rule is equally applicable here where the consequences to the woman are very serious. ..... judge in exercise of his discretion refused to allow the amendment. he has taken a very strict view which indeed, would be justified in any civil suit. but it cannot be justified in matrimonial suits. mr. amin has urged that the court below was right in refusing any amendment of the ..... stated that'the burden of proof is throughout on the person alleging adultery there being a presumption of innocence. a suit for divorce is a civil and not a criminal proceeding, but the same strict proof is required of adultery as is required in a criminal case before an accused person .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant177; ILR1997KAR2346
..... is thereby allowed to become final and conclusive, the decree of the trial court alone becomes the basis for making an application for a final decree under order 34, rule 5, cpc.in this case, the preliminary decree passed by the trial court against defendant 1, who alone had mortgaged the properties, was not challenged by any one in appeal and ..... acts/rules/orders:civil procedure code, 1908 - order 34, rules 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11;limitation act, 1963 - article 137;constitution of india - article 181cases referred:ramaiah v. veeraiah, ilr 1883 kar. 114;subramaniam chettiar v. muthaiah pillai, air 1957 mad. 189;bhagabat sit v. balaram sit, air 1963 ori. 61;gajanana chintaman deshpande v. karnatak glass industries, 1971(1) mys. l.j. 200;venkatesh virupax deshpande v. central bank ..... held that the application for final decree is barred by limitation and dismissed the same.3. in this second appeal, it was contended that for an application under order 34, rule 8, cpc, article 137 of the limitation act does not apply, for an application requesting the court to draw final decree, no period of limitation applies. in fact, drawing up ..... a. 104 of 1984, the learned additional civil judge, chikodi has allowed the appeal on 14-8-1986 and dismissed the application. the question of law that is framed in this second appeal is as follows:'whether article 137 of the limitation act applies in respect of an application filed under order 34, rule 8, cpc particularly when there is no decree for foreclosure .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1918Bom1; (1919)21BOMLR56
..... same mortgage. the chief justice held that although the right to redeem still subsisted the remedy was barred by operation of the rule of law embodied in section 13 of the code of civil procedure, he said the legislature has laid down what is 'the matter in issue' in a redemption suit. in order to ..... but for a decree absolute,--see order xxxiv, rules 5 and 8 of the civil procedure code of 1908. the reason of the change is thus described by sir lawrence jenkins in amlook chand parrack v. sarat chunder mukerjee i.l.r.(1911) cal. 913: 'one object in view when the present code was passed was to end, as far as ..... declaration of his right to partition, that would he a claim to which even this subordinate judge would not have applied section 13 of the code of civil procedure. the present claim is in effect such a claim as i have referred to, although not so in form.'19. a second redemption suit must ..... whether, if it was not an application in execution, article 181 constituted a bar on the ground that the application was one not contemplated by the code of civil procedure. and so it is now provided that the application which follows a preliminary decree for sale, is not for an order for sale, but for a ..... no doubt of the court's power, either under the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act or the provisions of the transfer of property act or the code of civil procedure, to pass a decree adjudicating once for all the rights of the parties to be secured by executing the decree nisi or by proceeding to .....Tag this Judgment!
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 ('cpc' 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 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 cpc, 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 cpc 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!
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!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
..... in the event of non- filing of written statement the appellant/plaintiff sought that the suit ought to have been decreed in his favour. sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of order 8 of code of civil sa 1034.06 procedure, 1908 provides that where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts ..... /plaintiff to prefer this second appeal on the ground that the courts below have erred in law by discarding the presumption under section 117 of the madhya pradesh land revenue code, 1959 arising on entries made in the revenue records and in not believing the averments in plaint and the evidence which was unchallenged as such the findings by courts below ..... from trial court and firs.appellate court. heard on admission. perused the records. plaintiff's second appeal is directed against the dismissal of civil suit no.544-a/2002 (decreed on 30-06-2005) and its affirmation in civil appeal no.99- a/2005, dismissed on 11-05-2006. suit for declaration and permanent injunction was preferred by appellant in respect of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : IV(2008)BC411; 2008(3)CTC416
..... court below in its common order dated 30.3.2004 passed in i.a. nos. 19256/2003 and 19257/2003.11. in : (2003)3mlj191 ponnammal v. subburaman and anr. it is observed as follows:code of civil procedure, 1908, order 8, rules 1, 5(2), 9 and 10 ( as amended by central act 96 of 1999 and 22 of 2002), section 148 - time limit fixed for filing written ..... acceptable grounds have been made out by defendant for not filing written statement within stipulated time - such power is applicable to section 148 of code of civil procedure or to later part of order 9, rule 9 or part of rule 10 - receiving written statement beyond stipulated period is only exception - normally written statement should be filed within time stipulated - court should exercise its ..... powers to receive written statement beyond specified period very carefully - liberal exercise of such power would defeat the object of legislature in bringing about the amendment to code of civil procedure - defendant has ..... fault with and court declined to interfere with order under revisional jurisdiction.12. in 2006 (1) tnlj (sc) 66 shaikh salim haji abdul khayumsab v. kumar and ors. it is held that 'the order 8 rule 1 c.p.c., provision does not deal with the power of the court and also does not specifically take away the power of court to .....Tag this Judgment!
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!
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!