Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Page 1 of about 33,168 results (0.163 seconds)

Jun 13 2007 (HC)

Mrs. Asha Anilkumar Kataria Sole Proprietor of Kat Stocks Through Its ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR355; III(2008)BC149; 2007(5)BomCR125; (2007)109BOMLR1273; 2007(4)MhLj149; [2008]81SCL477(Bom)

..... of the view that hence the suit by plaintiff is not maintainable, the order should have been for dismissal of the suit. the possibility of rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure, because it is 'barred by any law' does not survive, if it is the claim of the defendants that sebi act, 1992, s.c. ..... is taken away.16. the learned trial judge, at the conclusion of the impugned order, has rejected the plaint. on reference to order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, the plaint is required to be rejected, if it does not disclose a cause of action or if relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required to correct the valuation, ..... and order, learned additional district judge was pleased to reject the plaint and dispose of suit, by arriving at a conclusion that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. although suit is disposed of by rejection of plaint, since the decree as defined by section 2(2) of the code of civil procedure, 1908, includes 'rejection of plaint', appeal under section 96 is preferred, challenging the said ..... judgment and order.2. special civil suit no. 212 of 1999 was filed in the court of civil judge, senior division, jalgaon, by present appellant for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2009 (HC)

Syed Abdul Razzak AminuddIn and Hazrat Gaiban Shah Baba Syed Through I ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3609

..... is not mandatory prior to institution of the suit. 7. it was further canvassed that the very scheme of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure in respect of rejection of plaint nowhere contemplates the rejection of the plaint in part as happened in the instant case. 8. learned counsel shri gangapurwala for the petitioner further submitted that defendant no. 1 board has not ..... scheme of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure is unknown of rejection of plaint partly. in the said context, it is to be noted that order 1 rule 3 of the code of civil procedure permits the separate trial and further there is no prohibition/bar for rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure partly, since the very provision of order 7 ..... thereby opposed the said application. considering the rival contentions, the learned presiding officer, maharashtra wakf tribunal, aurangabad allowed the said application, and thereby rejected the plaint against defendant no. 1 under order 7 rule 11 (d) of the code of civil procedure r/w section 89 of the wakf act, 1995 and further directed that the suit shall proceed against the other defendants, since they .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2007 (HC)

Sri K.P. Subramanya S/O Late Chinnappa Naidu Vs. Smt. B. Gowramma W/O ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2008KAR1523; 2008(6)KLJ482; 2008(1)KCCR311; 2008(2)AIRKarR263; AIR2008NOC1239; 2008(3)ICC685; 2008AIHC1675(Kar)

..... on which the trial court may be convinced that the suit may fail. but that cannot be a criteria for rejection of the plaint under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure as the only criteria for rejecting the plaint being that the plaint averments by themselves should lead to the inference that the suit should fail for want of disclosure of cause of action ..... of the court, the second suit for the same relief is clearly barred in view of the provisions of order xxiii rule 1(4)(6) of the code of civil procedure and therefore the plaint should have been rejected at the threshold on such position having been pointed out in terms of the application filed by the defendant no. 1.6. it is also urged ..... failing for such possibilities may be an eventuality or a likely probability, that is not the test to be applied for examining the question of rejection of the plaint under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.16. a perusal of the order also indicates that the learned trial judge appears to have examined more than what was required. on a perusal ..... order dated 9.4.2007 passed on ia no. iii, an application filed under order vii rule 11 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure filed by the defendant - petitioner in the suit praying for rejection of the plaint, which came to be dismissed.2. it is contended, inter alia, that the learned trial judge has committed an error; that the trial .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1998 (HC)

Smt. Shyama Devi Vs. Viith Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ot ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1998(4)AWC485

..... -fee. the fact that the parties and the suit property involved are same and that the suit was rejected on the ground of non-payment of court-fee is not disputed. order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure empowers the court to reject the plaint on the grounds mentioned therein--one of which is failure on the part of the plaintiff to make ..... good the deficit court-fees if the plaint is written on paper insufficiently stamped within the time fixed by the court.12. admittedly ..... the plaint was rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code. an order rejecting the plaint is a decree ..... as defined in section 2(2) which while defining the decree deemed to include the rejection of plaint. therefore, the said rejection of the plaint being a decree, the issue which ought to have been raised shall .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 1980 (HC)

Shakti Sugars Limited Vs. Union of India and State Trading Corporation ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1981Delhi212; ILR1980Delhi1293

..... to be seen if actually according to law, on the allegations contained in the plaint, defendant no. 2 was agent of the union of india or ..... and not formal reading of a plaint it is manifest that the plaint is vaxatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clean right to sue trial court should exercise its power under order vii rule ii. code of civil procedure, and should reject the plaint. so it is meaningful reading of the plaint which is required. it is ..... and the argument will have to be heard after framing of appropriate issue in that respect. (15) i, thereforee, accept the application and reject the plaint with costs under order viii rule ii, code of civil procedure against the union of india, defendant no. 1. ..... 1840 per metric tonne and on 7-4-1979 when the plaintiff caused legal notices to be delivered to the 'defendants under section 80 of the code of civil procedure on 27-6-1979, when the defendant no. 2 replied to the notice dated 7-4-1979, denying its liability.'it is apparent from the above ..... judgment of assam high court in shanti ranjan das gupta, v. dasuram mirzamal firm air 1957 ass 49(2). it was held that a plaint could not be rejected on the ground that there was no cause of action for the suit because that was something different from saving that the plaintff itself did not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1996 (HC)

Amareswar SwaIn Vs. Jagabandhu SwaIn and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1996(I)OLR479

..... all other cases, the bench clerk shall carry out the amendment.' under sections 33 and 54 of the code of civil procedure, 1877, the court could reject a plaint if the party failed to comply with the order for amendment. there is no such provision under the code and the only consequence of the failure to amend within time would be that he cannot amend his ..... a. pasayat, j. 1. an interesting question, though simple in its appearance but deceptive in nature, relating to scope and ambit of order 6, rule 18 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short, the code') falls for consideration in this writ application.2. the factual position is undisputed and, therefore, a brief reference to it would suffice.petitioner is the plaintiff in title ..... suit no. 163 of 1984 pending before the learned civil judge (senior division), jagatsinghpur. during pendency of the suit, an application under order 6, rule 17 of the code was ..... matter was taken up on 17-4-1995 and 27-4-1995; prayer to accept the corrected consolidated plaint filed on 1-3-1995 was rejected. a petition was filed styled as one under order 6. rule 18 of the code for acceptance of the corrected consolidated plaint, but the prayer was rejected. it was held that in view of the failure to amend the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2005 (HC)

Snowhite Apparels Ltd. Vs. K.S.A. Technopak (i) Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : IV(2005)BC134; 121(2005)DLT351; 2005(83)DRJ580

..... air 1940 ran 207, official trustee v. mrs. rae burn and ors. : air1942pat335 ; .the relevant provision of order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure provides:-'r.11. rejection of plaint.the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.'7. a perusal of the clause (d) shows that the ..... with the issue whether an election petition could also be rejected under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure. in s.n. rekhi's case (supra), a division bench of this court held that a court could reject a plaint under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure, if the facts as stated in the plaint are taken to be proved and if such facts disentitled ..... plaint would be liable to be rejected if the statement made in the plaint shows that it was barred by any law. thereforee, the relevant facts ..... 1. appellant is the defendant in a suit for recovery of rs. 6 lacs or so filed by first respondent. it had filed an application for rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11 cpc claiming that this suit was barred by time which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 13.05.2004. appellant assails the order and asserts that suit was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1978 (HC)

Civil Miscellaneous (Original) Tikka Shatrujit Singh and ors. Vs. Brig ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1979Delhi321

..... sultan singh, j. (1) this is an application on behalf of defendant no. 1 under order 7 rule ii, order 32 rule 9 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure for rejecting the plaint and/or dismissing the same. brigadier sukhjit singh, (defendant no. 1) is the father and maharani gita devi (plaintiff no. 3) is his wife, plaintiffs i and 2 are ..... cause of action and it cannot be thrown out under clause (a) of rule 11 of order 7 of the code of civil procedure. (7) clause (d) of rule 11 of order 7 of the code of civil procedure is as under : '7(11)the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--- (a) .... (b) .... (c) ..... (d) where the suit appears to be on the statement in the ..... . 1 and 2, her minor sons, as a cover to press her own claim and achieve her selfish end. the defendant no. i also claims rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. (4) the objections to the maintainability of the suit as clarified now at the bar by the learned counsel for the respondent are that the ..... by the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 that for purposes of deciding the present application and to reject the plaint under clause (d) of rule 11 of order 7 of the code of civil procedure, court has to look into the allegations contained in the plaint alone. the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 is that the present suit relates .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 1998 (HC)

Nesammal and Another Vs. Edward and Another

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1998(3)CTC165

..... the threshold. 12. the revision is also not maintainable since the order rejecting the plaint is a decree under the code of civil procedure. even if the plaint is rejected on some other grounds not covered by order 7 rule 11 code of civil procedure, the remedy is only an appeal under section 96 of code of civil procedure. the same is so declared in the decision reported in r.shanmughavelu pillai v ..... ]2scr782 ). 11. in view of all these decisions the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that unless the conditions are satisfied under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure, the plaint cannot be rejected is without any basis. the provisions of order 7 rule 11 are not exhaustive and the court has got inherent powers to see that the vexatious litigations are ..... . the further contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the ground mentioned for rejection of the plaint will not come under order 7, rule 11 of code of civil procedure. only if the grounds are satisfied under that rule, the court gets jurisdiction to reject the plaint is the argument of the counsel. i do not think that the said argument also could ..... be accepted. 6. as early as in lakshmanan chetty v. lakshmanam chettiar and others, a.i.r. 1915 mad. 483. their lordships held that the provisions of order 7, rule 11 of code of civil procedure are not exhaustive. that is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 19 2001 (SC)

Union of India Vs. Suresh J. Thanawala and ors. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2001(7)SC668; 2001(6)SCALE401; (2001)8SCC185; 2002(1)LC43(SC)

..... an order dated 17th january, 2000 has been dismissed. by the order dated 17th january, 2000 the court has, exercising powers under order vii rule 11 (d) of the code of civil procedure, rejected the plaint is being barred by limitation.4. briefly stated the facts are as follows:the subject matter of the suit involves large areas of land situated in and around mumbai ..... . respondents/defendants filed notice of motion no. 399 of 1999 praying for rejection of the plaint filed under order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. this prayer was based upon section 20 of the maharashtra land revenue code which, inter alia, provides as follows:20 ... (4) any suit in any civil court after the expiration of one year from the date of any ..... . the collector of mumbai purporting to act under section 20 of the maharashtra land revenue code passed an order dated 22nd june, 1995 holding that the lands in question belong ..... rejected by the order dated 17th january, 2000. the appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. 8. undoubtedly, in the plaint, the appellants have prayed for condonation of delay of the period of limitation as prescribed under section 20 of the maharashtra land revenue code. however, the learned solicitor general submitted that the main relief is for a declaration that .....

Tag this Judgment!


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