Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Page 10 of about 1,222 results (0.032 seconds)

May 17 1988 (HC)

iqbal Singh and ors. Vs. Jagdish Chandra and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1988All242

..... seeking relief against defendants 1 to 6, it is only sought against defendants 2 to 6.11. thus, the court below has committed error in rejecting the amendment application of the applicants. in view of legal position, the revision is allowed. the order dated 19-2-1988 is quashed. the court ..... in the present suit, the allegations have been made against all the parters. it cannot be said that on account of the amendment of the plaint, the cause of action will be changed.10. thus contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that by the amendment, the cause of ..... is liable for accounting.7. the learned counsel for the opposite parties has urged that from the averments made in paragraphs 2 and6 of the plaint only sri ram narain is the accounting partner. the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs does not show that the rights of accounting from other partners ..... against an order dated 19-2-1988 by which the trial court has rejected the application of amendment in the plaint filed by the plaintiff-applicants. the plaintiffs-applicants moved an application before the trial court for amendment in the plaint by virtue of which in the relief clause insted of defendants 2' to ..... 6, defendants 1 to 6 were sought to be added. it was averred that it has occurred by typing error and instead of defendants 1 to 6, it has been typed as defendants 2 to 6. there is no other amendment sought. however, the court below rejected .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 1949 (PC)

S.E. Orde Vs. Mrs. T.C. Deacon and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All582

..... date & has to give notice to the opposite party to show cause why the applicant be not declared a pauper. rule 7 then sets out the procedure at the hearing after service of notice & sub-rule (2) of rule 7 is as follows:'the court shall also hear any argument which the ..... a revision against an order passed by the learned first civil judge of meerut rejecting an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis. an application was filed as required by order 33 rule 2, civil p. c. the application contained the particulars required in regard to plaints. a schedule of the property belonging to the applicant was ..... with reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject-matter, the court shall reject his application. to hold that in a case where the applicant has entered into no such agreement & has created no interest, in favour of a ..... reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit underwhich any other person has obtained an interest in suchsubject-matter.explanation--an application shall not be rejected under clause (d) merely on the ground that the proposed suit appears to be barred by any law.'the attention of the bench does not ..... dass v. ram narain dass, a. i. r. (26) 1989 pat. 385, the lower ct. came to the conclusion that the application must be rejected & permission to sue in forma pauperis should not be granted. we have looked into the decision mentioned above & with great respect to the learned judges we do .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2002 (HC)

Ram Roop and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and o ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC615

..... . it is well-settled in law that a new case based upon the facts, which were available to the plaintiff at the time of filing of original plaint but were not pleaded in the original plaint, cannot be permitted to be set up by way of amendment. a reference in this regard may be made to the decisions in basanti del v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1998 (HC)

Hafiz ChiraguddIn and Others Vs. Vth Upper Munsif, Agra and Another

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1998(3)AWC2179

..... passed in revision against the order dated 21.11.1983.4. the suit was instituted by the petitioners in representative capacity under order i, rule 8 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the 'code'), against the respondent no. 2 for permanent injunction restraining him from demolishing any grave or raising any construction in the property in dispute. the property in dispute ..... requires the petitioners to take steps to serve the sunni central waqf board, lucknow within the extended period andimposes the condition that on their failure their amendment application would stand rejected. the amendment application has not been disposed of on merits. the petition is. therefore, misconceived and liable to be dismissed.14. in the result, the petition fails and is hereby ..... cost. apart from imposing the cost, the court also directed that in case the petitioners failed to take steps within the time allowed by it, their amendment application would stand rejected.11. against the above order dated 11.1.1990, the instant petition has been instituted in this court. the court entertained the petition and stayed the operation of the impugned ..... as required by the order dated 21.11.1983.10. on 11.1.1990 came up the application of the petitioners under order vi, rule 17 of the code seeking certain amendments in the plaint. the court noticed that despite the order dated 21.11.1983, affirmed in revision, and despite being granted time repeatedly, the petitioners did not take steps to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1907 (PC)

Husaini Khanam and anr. Vs. HusaIn Khan and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1907)ILR29All471

..... the court below, we cannot finally deal with his appeal, but must remand issues to that court under the provisions of section 566 of the code of civil procedure. the mortgagees have put it out of their power to deliver over possession of the five villages to the mortgagors on redemption, these villages are ..... to cases of misjoinder either of parties or of the matters in contest in the suit; to cases in which a material document has been rejected, because it has not borne the proper stamp, and to cases in which there has been an erroneous valuation of the subject of the suit ..... defendants raised the preliminary objection that the plaint should have been rejected owing to the fact that the deficiency in the court fee had not been ..... applied for three weeks' time to make good the deficiency, but this application was rejected on the 23rd of january, and on the 25th of january 1899 an order was passed by the subordinate judge directing the plaint to be registered, subject to any objection the defendants might raise. the principal ..... made good by the plaintiffs within the period fixed by the court, and also on the ground that as there was no sufficiently stamped plaint presented to the court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 1969 (HC)

NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1899)ILR21All359

arthur strachey, c.j.1. we think that the learned judge was wrong in holding that section 43 of the code of civil procedure barred the present suit. section 43 only applies where there has been a suit, and the plaintiff omits in that suit to make a particular claim which he is entitled ..... was to make an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis, but that application was rejected. section 410 of the code clearly shows that it is only when such an application is granted that it becomes the plaint in a suit, and therefore if the application is rejected, it never becomes a suit, and section 43, which is limited to suits, cannot apply ..... enforce that charge, and there is nothing in section 413 which could be held to bar it. that is all that is necessary to say about section 43 of the code. as to the question of limitation the learned judge is right in holding that article 132 is applicable. as we disagree with the learned judge's view of the effect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 1982 (HC)

Sudarshan Prasad and ors. Vs. Radha Kishun Ram (Deceased by Lrs.)

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1982All218

..... both the courts below, inasmuch as the earlier decision was given by a civil court in a regular suit and the present dispute had also arisen before a civil court in a regular suit, to both of whom the code of civil procedure was applicable in all its force, and the earlier decision could be said ..... rule 27, c. p. c. for admission of fresh evidence are not at all satisfied in this case. if the application for amendment of the plaint is rejected, there is no good reason whatsoever for admission of the documents sought to be filed by the other application. for the aforesaid reasons, i did not ..... think it fit to allow either of the two applications and proceeded to hear the appeal. the two applications are accordingly rejected. 14. article 59 of the schedule to the limitation act. 1963, is in the following terms. '59.to cancal or set aside an instrument or ..... , for getting over the bar oflimitation, but the age of the youngestone of them, that is sudarshan prasad,was specified to be twenty three yearsin the plaint when it was originally presented in october, 1966. the 'other plaintiffs were all of them older than sudarshan prasad. suit 15 of 1967 was thusclearly, ..... the two applications that the facts about the proceedings under section 145, cr. p. c., were ignorantly or accidentally omitted to be mentioned in the plaint and the documents in respect thereof were also ignorantly and bona fide omitted to be filed at the proper, stage of the suit in the trial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1921 (PC)

Mahadeo Sahai Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1922All1; (1922)ILR44All248

..... coming to that conclusion, is to say that the application as it stands, supported by the statement of particulars (vide order xxxiii, rule 2 of the code of civil procedure) which actually accompanied it, should be rejected on the ground that it discloses no cause of action against the principal defendant. the question whether an application, supported by a somewhat different set of particulars ..... of the court, at the particular stage then reached, as limited by rule 5 of order xxxiii of the code of civil procedure. nevertheless the order before us does in my opinion give adequate reasons, proceeding upon materials then properly before the court for rejecting this application. in substance the court below has held that the petition accompanying the application discloses no cause of ..... have been accepted by the court below, is a matter which that court was not called upon to decide and has not decided. this application was in my opinion rightly rejected for the reasons already given. i would, therefore, dismiss this application with costs.walsh, j.2. i agree on the merits and i merely wish to add that in my ..... , in that no suit was ever instituted in the court below, as the suit would only have commenced if the application had been accepted and the petition registered as a plaint. moreover, the effect of the order brought before us in revision was to dispose, for the time being, of the entire matter pending in that court. however, reserving this point .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1924 (PC)

Lachmi and anr. Vs. Ram Bahadur

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1925All275a

daniels, j.1. it appears to me in this case that the learned judge has misunderstood the meaning of the words in clause (d) of rule 5 of order 33, of the code of civil procedure, 'where his allegations do not show a cause of action.' he has rejected the application to sue as a pauper not on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, but on the ground that the defendant had a good defence to the suit, namely that the matter in suit between the parties was merely res judicata. it was not opened to the learned judge to dismiss the application on this ground and in doing so he has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or has at any rate acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction.2. i accordingly allow this application, set aside the order of the court below and direct that court to enquire into the application on the merits. costs will abide the result.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1972 (HC)

Molhar Singh Vs. Raghunath

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1972All483

..... of the petition. section 18 says that the procedure laid down in the code of civil procedure, 1908, with respect to the admission of the plaints, shall, so far as it is applicable, be followed in the case of insolvency petition. thus, the court has power to reject an insolvency petition on grounds enumerated in the code of civil procedure. section 19 provides that where an insolvency ..... petition is admitted, the court shall make an order fixing a date for hearing the petition. section 24 laid down the procedure ..... authorises the insolvency court to appoint a receiver who can take immediate possession of the debtor's property. he has all the power of a receiver appointed under the code of civil procedure. thus, even under the provincial insolvency act the court can take control and manage the property of a debtor prior to his adjudication.17. in the result we ..... clause would have been enacted.9. in view of section 5 of the provincial insolvency act the procedure given in the code of civil procedure applies to insolvency proceedings. when a party dies his heirs and legal representatives can be substituted under order 22 of the code of civil procedure. now, if the right to sue does not survive the proceedings abate. the question whether .....

Tag this Judgment!


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