Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: cpc Page 1 of about 1,583,496 results (0.533 seconds)

Mar 13 1981 (SC)

Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1981SC1143; 1981(1)SCALE794; (1981)2SCC646; [1981]3SCR223; 1981(13)LC695(SC)

..... partake of the character of substantive law are excluded by implication as no such implication can be read into section 21 and a particular provision of the code irrespective of whether it is procedural or substantive will not apply only if it is inconsistent with any provision of the act. for instance, it is difficult to countenance the suggestion that the doctrine ..... other state. a suit or a proceeding for divorce under the hindu marriage act in a civil court is necessarily a suit or proceeding and must on a plain reading of section 25(1) of the cpc be held to come under section 25(1) of the code, as the said section speaks of any suit, appeal or other proceeding. this court must ..... powers to transfer such later petition as if it had been empowered so to do under the said code.the learned counsel for the respondent argues that in view of the provisions contained in section 21, only the provisions contained in the cpc relating to procedure which will regulate the proceedings instituted under the hindu marriage act, 1955 will apply; and as section ..... behalf, all proceedings under this act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by the cpc, 1908'. in terms section 21 does not make any distinction between procedural and substantive pro visions of c.p.c. and all that it provides is that the code as far as may be shall apply to all proceedings under the act and the phrase 'as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1998 (HC)

Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. Arun Prakash Pandey and ors.

Court : Patna

..... the intervenor-opposite party purported tobe under order xxvi, rules 13 and 14(2) as well as under order xx, rule 18 of the code of civil procedure (for short 'cpc) holding that the preliminary decree dated 19-7-1978 passed in partition suit no. 17 of 1976 in favour of the plaintiff is collusive and ..... i fail to understand how the court below exercised power under order xxvi, rules 13 and 14(2) and order xx, rule 18 of the cpc and set aside the preliminary decree. the court below has completely overlooked the order passed by this court in the aforesaid appeal filed by the intervenor-opposite ..... pending, opposite party no. 9 filed a petitionpurported to be under order xxvi, rules 13 and 14(2) read with order xx, rule 18, cpc for setting aside the preliminary decree and final decree proceeding which was allowed by the impugned order and the preliminary decree has been set aside and final ..... of s.p. chengalvaraya naidu v. jagannath, air 1994 sc 853. learned counsel further put much stress on the scope of section 115 of the cpc and contended that in any case this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction should not interfere with the impugned order. 6. before appreciating the rival contentions ..... nos. 7 and 8 filed misc. case no. 11 of 1988 under section 47 of the cpc for setting aside the auction sale. the said petition was dismissed on 27-8-1988 against which the petitioner filed civil revision no. 1700 of 1990 before this court. the petitioner filed rejoinder opposing the prayer of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 2005 (HC)

Bimla Devi Vs. Shahnaz Begum and ors.

Court : Patna

..... j.n. bhatt, c.j.1. the main question which has come to the surface in this civil revision under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, (in short the cpc) is as to whether the rejection of an application seeking permission for filing the written statement beyond the period of limitation in terms of the amended provision of order viii ..... rule (1) of the cpc by the trial court by passing an order on 2.3.2005 in title suit no ..... any delay beyond the period of limitation of ninety days even in terms of the proviso attached to order viii rule (1) of the cpc.10. apart from that, otherwise also this court has held recently in civil revision no. 1430 of 2004; baidyanath singh @ baijnath singh and ors. v. ram binay singh and ors. by recording an order on 7.9 ..... 90 days as prescribed in the amended provision of order viii, rule (1) of the cpc by virtue of order dated 2.3.2005.2. this is, precisely, the order under challenge in this civil revision by invocation of the provision of section 115 of the cpc.3. it may be recorded that in between the presentation date of an application to get .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 2007 (SC)

R.N. Jadi and Brothers and ors. Vs. Subhashchandra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2007SC2571; 2007(5)ALT25(SC); 2007(4)AWC3430(SC); 2008(3)BomCR386; 2007(4)CTC326; [2007(4)JCR7(SC)]; JT2007(9)SC165; 2007(6)KarLJ161; (2007)6MLJ59(SC); 2007(II)OLR(SC)49

..... of the case. i am prompted to make a few observations in the context of the discussion by my learned brother on the scope of the related provisions of the code of civil procedure.2. it is notorious that suits were being dragged on by defendants in suits by not filing their written statements within a reasonable time. we are not unaware of ..... petition under article 227 of the constitution of india, 1950 (in short the 'constitution') on the ground that the provision of order viii rule 1 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'cpc) was mandatory and the trial judge could not have accepted the written statement filed beyond 90 days from the date of service. the writ petition was allowed by ..... not being exercised leading to slackness in the matter of filing of pleadings in defence. it was in that context that the relevant provisions of the code of civil procedure were amended, the laudable object being to avoid delay in the disposal of suits. the amended order viii rule 1 fixes a time limit for the filing of written statements. ..... and proceedings without sacrificing the fairness of trial and the principles of natural justice in-built in any sustainable procedure. the statement of objects and reasons for enacting code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976 (104 of 1976) (in short '1976 amendment act') highlights following basic considerations in enacting the amendments:(i) with the accepted principles of natural justice that a litigant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1961 (HC)

Duraisami Nadar Vs. Sudalaimada Nadar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1962Mad181; (1962)1MLJ40

..... same time are in pari materia, forming as it were a system of legislation in regard to the civil procedural law in this country. it is therefore permissible to call in aid the relevant sections or rules of the civil procedure code in the construction of the various articles of the limitation act. as pointed out in the order of reference ..... c.p.c., jst as art. 11 applies only to suits which fall within or xxi rule 63 of the code. before art. 11-a can be applied, there should be an order made under the civil procedure code. it is the date of the order from which time begins to run. the words "to establish the right which ..... with subramanyam, j., indeed, we think there can be no reasonable doubt about it. it is this. though in terms, order xxi rule 101 of the code mentions only the case where the court directs that the applicant be put into possession of the property on the application made by him under rule 100, even an ..... . 11-a of the limitation act. it is important to notice that the effect of order xxi rule 63, as well as of rule 103 of the code is to make any order which falls within the scope of either rule, conclusive subject to the result of a suit which may be instituted to get rid ..... claim order, while art 11-a relates to orders arising out of delivery of property. in neither article is there any express reference to particular rules of the code. as both art. 11 and art. 11-a prescribe the same time limit and are intended to apply to what are often described as summary order in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2011 (HC)

Sri Manak Chand, Son of Misrimal and ors. Vs. Sri Babulal. Son of Misr ...

Court : Karnataka

..... ors. v. rasaranjan & urs.) wherein it is held that the plaint in question could not have been rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. the court at that stage could not have been gone into any disputed question of fact but while passing an order of grant of injunction indisputably, it can ..... was allowed by the court below, then the litigation couid have come to an end. so as could be seen from the provisions of section 115 cpc and the decisions referred to supra by the counsel, the writ petition either under articles 226 or 227 cannot be maintained. the petitioners ought to ..... apex court, reported in 1980 (2) scc 378 (vishesh kumar vs. shanti prasad) wherein it is held that a revision petition under section 1 15 cpc is a separate and distinct proceeding from a petition under article 227 of the constitution and if a revision is not maintainable, it. cannot be treated ..... 2003 kar. 3749 [surya dev rai vs. ram chander rai and others) wherein the apex court taking into consideration the provisions of section 1 15 cpc and articles 226 and 227 of the constitution held that where, a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which ii does not have or has failed to ..... maintainable in law? 2 whether the order passed by the court below rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under the provisions of order vii rule 11 cpc is erroneous and illegal ? 14. whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to call for any interference in the order of the court below ? .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2012 (HC)

Krishnappa, Bangalore. Vs. K.N. Sridevi, Bangalore.

Court : Karnataka

..... the plaintiff, either by attempting to dispose or remove from the jurisdiction of the court, his property. the jurisdiction under order 38 rule 5 of cpc is an extraordinary jurisdiction. the power conferred on the court under the said provision is a drastic and extraordinary power, which should not be exercised mechanically ..... judgment, grant of temporary injunctions and appointment of receivers) is to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. the object of order 38 rule 5 cpc in particular, is to prevent any defendant from defeating the realization of the decree that may ultimately be passed in favour of the plaintiff, either by ..... 25.3.2011 in o.s.no.5986/2010 on the file of the 30th additional city civil judge, bangalore city, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under order 38 rule 5 of the cpc for an order of attachment before judgment attaching the suit schedule property has been dismissed.2. the ..... , bangalore in this regard and that fir has been registered against him under section 323, 324, 325, 418, 420 and 506(b) of the ipc. in her counter, she has stated that she has no intention of selling the suit schedule property in favour of the third parties as she is ..... a claim pending against him. mere neglect or suffering execution by other creditors, is not a sufficient reason for an order under order 38 of the code.(14) the sale of properties at a gross undervalue, or benami transfers, are always good indications of an intention to defeat the plaintiffs claim. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2008 (HC)

M.P. Sanathkumar Since Deceased by His L.Rs and ors. Vs. Radakrishna N ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2009(1)KCCR116

..... a decree in the suit unless a decree is passed in a suit as contemplated under the code.12. it is further relevant to note that even the provisions of the code does not provide any such procedure of filing of an application for passing a supplemental preliminary decree. the said provision is meant ..... be passed only in a suit and not in any other proceedings. if is relevant to note that the respondents filed the civil miscellaneous cases under the provisions of the code and not by way of a suit and therefore, any order passed by the trial court in the miscellaneous cases would not ..... pursuance of the agreement, the deceased-m.p. sanath kumar filed the suits seeking specific performance of the contract. all the suits were clubbed by the civil judge [jr.dn.] and a common judgment and order was passed on 24th march 2000. in pursuance of the common judgment and order, five decrees ..... nos. 5, 6, 4, 7, 3/2005 respectively, vide annexure-d).1. these petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 08.12.2005 in civil miscellaneous case nos. 3 to 7/2005, directing to draw a supplemental preliminary decree and to return the advance amount of rs.1,000-00 with interest, ..... above said provision. on these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the impugned order and to dismiss the civil miscellaneous cases filed by the respondents under the provisions of the code.4. the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners by way .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2004 (HC)

Sri Ram Janki Sahkari Girih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Vs. Maksudpur Institute ...

Court : Patna

..... basis of a deed of assignment, steps taken by him under order i, rule 10, cpc, in my opinion, was quite proper and justified. moreover, since the intervenor institute is also represented through one of the heirs of the original plaintiff and ..... intervenor or to the intervenors impleadment by the impugned order and, hence in my view, there was no occasion for application of order xxii, rule 3, cpc by any other person in the suit.7. since the intervenor-opposite party no. 1 is claiming to be impleaded in place of original plaintiff on the ..... , it is quite apparent that since the sole original plaintiff has died, there is no occasion for filling any petition under order xxii, rule 3, cpc by any of the parties to the suit and it was for the heirs of the sole plaintiff to appear and file such petition. the said heirs ..... come forward for being substituted nor any notice of the suit was sent to them. later, on 11.6.2001 a petition under order i, rule 10, cpc was filed by o.p. no. 1, namely, maksudpur institute of research and education in natural and social sciences (hereinafter in short 'the institute') through its ..... civil revision petitions are being heard and decided together as both of them have been filed by two different defendants against the same order dated 5.7.2003 passed in title suit no. 653 of 1987 by which the learned sub-judge iv, patna, has allowed the petition of opposite party no. 1 under order i, rule 10, cpc .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 1986 (HC)

Varada Bai Vs. Mahadeva Mahendale

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1986KAR2277

..... to maintain judicial discipline, in the interest of justice it is just and necessary to suo motu exercise the jurisdiction of this court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, and set aside the execution proceedings which have taken place from the date of issue of delivery warrant culminating in the delivery of possession and also the aforesaid ..... and the order dated 24-3-1986 passed on i.as. 8 to 10 are not appealable and are revisable by this court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. having regard to the manner in which the proceedings before the court below have gone on subsequent to the order dated 4-3-1986 passed by this ..... .a. 21 : under order 41 rule 5(2) and section 151 cpc filedpraying to stay the operation of the decree passed inthis suit, until stay is obtained from theappellate court.notice given to sri m.r.m. rao, adv.notice not ..... 86. plff by mrmr.d1, 2 & 4 : by p.a.a.d3, 5 by k.t.b./n.s.d. 6 dead.i.a. 20 : under section 151 cpc filed by sri p. a. adiga,adv. for d1, 2 & 4 praying to (1) take up the accom-accompanying application for stay out order and to hearthe same.i ..... final decree proceeding under order 20 rule 12 c.p.c. defendants 1 and 2 shall pay to the plaintiff compensatory cost of rs. 500/-under section 35a, cpc, in addition to the normal post in the suit. the court fee payable on the plaint shall be the first charge on the decree. forward a copy of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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