Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Page 11 of about 1,222 results (0.031 seconds)

Sep 02 1957 (HC)

Smt. Kalawati Devi Vs. Chandra Prakash and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1959All37

..... (l). the provisions of present order 7, rule 11, c. p. c. correspond to section 54 of the code of civil procedure of 1882.section 53 of that code provided for the rejection of the plaint in case it is not ordered to be amended or not amended and provided that such action could be taken before the ..... first hearing of the suit. there was no such restriction under section 54 and it was held that the plaint could be rejected ..... . when a pauper plaintiff dies and a legal representative is brought on the record in accordance with the provisions of order 22, rule 3 of the code of civil procedure, there arises no occa-sion to demand the court-fee. the rule is :'3. (1) where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and ..... court contending that she should have been allowed, as legal representative, to continue the suit as provided under order 33 rule 8 of the code of civil procedure, that she could not be ordered to pay court-fee when there was no application by the defendant or the government pleader under order 33 ..... the plaint in the suit before she could continue the suit as a legal representative of ganga prasad. i may mention at this stage that the first ground in the application for revision indicating that she wanted to continue the suit in terms of order 33, rule 8 of the code of civil procedure may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2008 (HC)

Jagdish Saran Vs. Ixth Addl. District Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2008(3)AWC2592

..... 4.1973 to 13.11.1982)9. on 6.4.1973 the judgment-debtor shiv shankar filed objections under section 47 of code of civil procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'cpc') alleging that fresh tenancy rights had been created in his favour on the basis of an agreement between him and the landlord ..... the father of the petitioner contested an eviction proceedings, lost it, appealed against it, lost again, moved a revision only to be rebuffed by summary rejection by the high court. but the judge, in his clement jurisdiction, gratuitously granted over six months' time to vacate the premises. after having enjoyed ..... prem shankar tripathi v. first additional district judge, allahabad and ors. 1986 (12) alr 317 this court, in almost similar circumstances, quashed the plaint of a suit exercising its power under article 227 of constitution of india suo motu.40. these two decisions were followed by a learned judge of ..... saran be restrained from taking possession of the premises on the basis of orders passed in execution case no. 200 of 1972. along with the plaint an application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. the munsif chandausi, however, this time by the order dated 29th may, 1992 granted ..... plaintiff dispossessed on the basis of the decree which had been put to execution in execution case no. 200 of 1972. along with the plaint an application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed with a prayer that the defendant be restrained from proceeding further in execution case no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1991 (HC)

M/S. Arjees Wool and Fur Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Allahabad ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1992All111; [1993]76CompCas209(All)

..... contention that theamendment sought did not change the nature of the suit and it amounted only to a relief in the alternative and could not be rejected, for that reliance has been placed on the following decisions by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents.9. firm srinivas ram v. mahabir ..... to the administration of justice. a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or infraction of the rules of procedure (underlined mine).12. there can be no two opinions against above referred to decisions but the same are not applicable to the facts of the ..... gage by deposit of title deeds and, therefore, the order of the learned court below was clearly against the provisions of law and the civil judge has acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction while allowing that part of the amendment application.4. learned counsel for the parties agreed ..... suit no. 455 of 1989 is pending before the hon'ble high court at calcutta. as a counter blast the plaintiff filed a suit before the civil judge, mussoorie, at dehradun and prayed for the recovery of rs. 39,98,744.65. in that suit the plaintiff-respondent specified that defendant ..... if initially therelief of foreclosure had already been in the plaint the same could not have been deleted on the application of the defendant revisionist on the facts of the present case is not sound. order vi rule 16 of the civil procedure code reads as under:--'striking out pleadings -- the court may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2005 (HC)

Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Shri Gulab Singh, Chairman, Zila Panchayat Vs. St ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3563; 2005(3)ESC2209

..... every complaint and affidavit under this rule as well as any schedule or annexure thereto shall be verified in the manner laid down in the code of civil procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings and affidavit respectively.(4) not less than three copies of the complaint as well as of each of ..... provisions of rule 3(5). the provision is analogous to order 7, rule 11 cpc, which provides that if the plaint is not filed in duplicate as required under order 4 rule 1 cpc, the plaint is to be rejected, ix. as the complaint itself was not in accordance with rules, in view of ..... could approached this court to challenge the order. the only possible answer is no.43. in view of the above, the application for impleadment stands rejected. however, since the issues raised in this writ petition have' wide repercussions and since the questions to be answered are of a serious nature, we ..... his title to someone. however, in dr. duryodhan sahu and ors. v. jitendra kumar mishra and ors., : (1998)iillj1013sc , the hon'ble supreme court rejected the claim of a stranger to maintain a writ petition even in public interest.23. in m.s. jayaraj v. commissioner of excise, kerala and ors., : ..... motivated person and is there beneficiary of the impugned order. he cannot be termed as a 'person aggrieved'. therefore, his application is liable to be rejected. shri s.m.a. kazmi, learned chief standing counsel has supported shri shashi nandan and submitted that the application for impleadment deserves to be allowed. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1999 (HC)

Hari Kishan Gupta and Others Vs. Civil Judge, Kannauj and Others

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2000(1)AWC345

..... high court of kerala and madhya pradesh had taken the view by reason of section 141 of the code of civil procedure, the provision of the code is applicable in a proceeding under order xxxiii and, therefore, a plaint can be returned for being presented in proper court if it attracts the mischief of order 7 rule 10 ..... applicant is indigent or not only when the court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds mentioned in rule 5. the enquiry under rule 1 sub-rules (1) and (2) of order xliv of the code of civil procedure is also identical with those under rule 5, order xxxiii. in the ..... case of pavianose v. sugathan : air1993ker177 , it was held that if there is no cause of action, then an application to sue as indigent is liable to be rejected.14. under order xxxiii, rule 5 ..... regard to the question of jurisdiction. but the same does not come within the rule 5 which deals with the grounds of rejection of such an application. the return of the plaint does not imply that the court can go into the question raised by the defence. it is only to be ascertained on ..... scope and ambit of the enquiry as prescribed in rule 5. the enquiry is confined as to whether the application should be granted or rejected. such application can be rejected only on the ground specified in rule 5 and not otherwise. the consideration of order xxxiii is confined only to the question as to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 2006 (TRI)

Hyper Chemicals and Cosmetics Vs. State Bank of Patiala

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : II(2006)BC184

..... 17-a for the purpose of additional evidence. the principle relating to additional evidence is totally different than provision of order 6 rule 17 of the cpc relating to amendment of pleadings.regarding due diligence i have already stated that the delay although not being explained from the side of the respondent, the ..... are governed under order 6 rule 17 of the c.p.c. amendment under that order and rule had been made by the amendment of the cpc in year 2002 and a proviso had been added creating a bar in amendment of the pleadings after the trial being commenced. here in the present ..... delay in seeking amendment, the appellant should be compensated for such delay and of their convenience, if any.6. in the result, the appeal is rejected and a part of the impugned order regarding amendment is hereby allowed on condition of payment of rs. 1,000/- from the side of the respondent-bank ..... .a. no. 507/2000. once the case was decided in favour of the respondent bank and the counter claim made by the defendant-appellants have been rejected. the appeal was filed against such judgment and order before this appellate tribunal, which was numbered as appeal no. r-294/03. the then chairperson of ..... of the case. air 1971 sc 2177 relates to amendment being sought in the plaint regarding some other matter, when remand order was restricted to a fresh decision on the ground of resjudicata and hence the apex court had rejected such amendment, but in the present case i have already stated that remand order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2004 (TRI)

industrial Development Bank of Vs. Malwa Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : III(2006)BC54

..... period of notice under section 80 of the cpc the plaint was taken back by the appellant-bank and then again flied on the same ..... 1998 of the order sheet of the suit before the civil court, it is clear that the suit was filed on 5th december, 1997 with a prayer to waive the right of notice under section 80 of the cpc but when the same has been rejected and the plaint was ordered to be returned, then after spending the ..... december, 1997 pending and then included respondent-defendant no. 2 after expiry of the period of notice under section 80 of the cpc, but the same was not done, rather the plaint got returned and then filed afresh on 11th february, 1998 and hence the suit should be construed as filed on 11th february, ..... that necessity arose to file the suit premature because of urgency without compliance of section 80 (1) of the cpc the plaint was ordered to be returned as no urgency was found and as such the plaint was taken back from the side of the appellant-bank and it was re-filed on 11th february, 1998 ..... -operative society act vide notice dated 10th october, 1997 and also the notice was sent under section 80 of the cpc on that date. after expiry of the period of notice, the re-submitted plaint was registered before the district judge, indore and when the debts recovery tribunal was set up at jabalpur, the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1992 (HC)

Kailash Nath Singh Vs. the District Judge, Mirzapur and Anothers

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1993All67

..... prayer of amendment in the injunction application and also rightly observed that while considering a miscellaneous appeal the appellate court can-not allow and amendment in the plaint. he cannot travel beyond the pleas on the basis of which a trial court has passed an order of injunction, one way or the other. if ..... in last june and wanted to make pakka house over it. according to him, the balance of convenience was in favour of the defendant. the learned civil judge has observed that to consider the case of the parties, sufficient evidence would be required to find out which of the two versions is correct, ..... court passed an order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendant from raising construction over the land in dispute.3. aggrieved by the order of the learned civil judge dated 21-8-1991 defendants filed miscellaneous appeal no. 22 of 1991 before the district judge, mirzapur who by his order dated 21-5-1992 ..... order1. the petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the district judge, mirzapur dated 21-5-1992, allowing the appeal against the order of the civil judge, in the matter of injunction.2. petitioner, kailash nath singh filed a suit as suit no. 147 of 1991 (kailash nath singh ..... rejecting an amendment will be presumed. in support of this contention, he placed reliance on a full bench decision reported in ilr-v, ald as well as some other cases.9. the powers of appellate courts are the same as are conferred by this code to the trial court. by virtue of order 43, rule 2, cpc .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1961 (HC)

Harish Chand Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1962All307

..... part of the cause of action alleged in the notice and if that was wrong, the cause of action in the plaint became different from the cause of action in the notice. the claim, was therefore rejected. the case is thus distinguishable, on facts. in the case before us, the plaintiff was the consignee and had ..... of the judgment.' 6. in another case of union of india v. jeewan ram : air1958sc905 the claim made in the notice under section 80 of the civil procedure code was as follows :'that my said client is entitled to be reinstated on his former post, and to he paid theamount due to him on the basis of ..... a trust and could only be filed in the name of trustees, they pointed out, that notice had to be issued in the name of trustees. they rejected the claim on the ground that the person who had served the notice was not identical with the person who had filed the suit.12. if we ..... supreme court that the relief claimed in the, plaint could not be granted because it was different from one claimed in the notice. the contention was, however, rejected on the ground that there was no substantial difference between the two.9. in state of madras v. ..... his being treat-ed as if he was not discharged upto the date of re-instatement.'7. in the plaint the main relief claimed was a declaration that the order of discharge or removal of the respondent was illegal and arbitrary.8. it was contended before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 1919 (PC)

Nur Muhammad Vs. Firm Maulvi Jamil Ahmad

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1919All218; 52Ind.Cas.688

..... on behalf of the respondent to the effect that no appeal lies. it the order is in reality an order returning a plaint an appeal does lie under order xliii, rule 1, of the code of civil procedure, but what we have to consider is whether there was any plaint before the court at the time when it made this order. order xxxiii provides the ..... procedure for suits by paupers. rule 2 of the order provides that 'every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the ..... permission to sue as a pauper in the oases specified in that section. rule 6 provides that if the court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in rule 5, it shall fix a day of which notice shall be given to the opposite party and the government, rule ..... required in regard to plaints in suits and a schedule of any moveable and immoveable property belonging to the applicant with the estimated value thereof.' rule 4 provides that where the application is in proper form and duly presented the court may, if it thinks fit, examine the applicant or his agent.' under rule 5 the court shall reject an application for .....

Tag this Judgment!


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