Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Page 3 of about 1,222 results (0.031 seconds)

Dec 05 2001 (HC)

Prem Kumari Sharma Vs. Raj Mani Dubey and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC157

..... rent regarding the same premises. in that suit, the applicant moved an application under order 1. rule 10, c.p.c.. which was rejected by the trial court. therefore, the applicant filed a civil revision no. 399 of 1994. which was allowed by the district judge. allahabad on 1.2.1995 by order, annexure-1 to the ..... small causes court.10. as against this, the learned senior advocate for the respondents has argued that he has not filed that plaint. on the other hand, he has filed a fresh suit on the fresh cause of action. it is contended that first notice was given on 21.4 ..... senior advocate for the revisionist that the suit, thereafter, could have been filed only in the present form. that after taking back the plaint. it should have been presented in the court in the same form, but it was not done and fresh suit was filed in the court of judge, ..... court only. the applications were disposed of by the order, dated 29.11-1995 and after considering the facts, the then trial court ordered that the plaint be returned under section 23 of the provincial small causes court for being presented to the regular court.9. it has been argued by sri ravi kiran jain. ..... the valuation of rs. 25.000 and the valuation of the suit is more than rs. 25,000. another application was moved for return of the plaint under section 23 of the provincial small causes court act for the reason that the suit involved the question of title which could be decided by the regular .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1993 (HC)

Narendra Kumar JaIn and Another Vs. Sukumar Chand JaIn and Others

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1994All1

..... has submitted that sub-clause (a) of r. ii of 0.7 would be applicable in the present case and under this sub-clause the plaint could be rejected and the trial court's judgment is sought to be justified on the terms of the said sub-clause. it was further contended that the ..... the temple of property.8. thereafter the defendants seem to have filed an application purported to be undero. 7, r. ii. c.p.c. for rejection of the plaint. it was stated in this application that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs cannot be granted to them under s. 14 of the act. the defendants ..... reliefs claimed by the plaintiff.34. the application of the defendants for rejection of the plaint under 0.7, r. 11, c. ..... allowing them to amend the plaint and claim the reliefs which could be granted under s. 14 of the act. for not articulating the reliefs properly the plaint could not be rejected under o.7, r. 11(a), civil p.c. does not contain any provision by which a plaint can be rejected for any defect in the ..... 1. this is a civil first appeal against the judgment of the iii addl.district judge, meerut dated 28-1-1992 whereby court below was allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondents under o. 7, r. 11, c.p.c. and has rejected the plaint under the said order. the plaintiff-appellants are aggrieved against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2003 (HC)

Ganpat Lal Gupta and ors. Vs. Vth Additional District Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2126

..... the respondents setting aside the order dated 8.1.1991, passed by the trial court allowing the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint under order vi, rule 17 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter called c.p.c.).2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed suit no. 46 of 1989 against ..... or prejudice to the other side. the amendment sought should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. application for amendment may be rejected if the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him injury which could not be ..... . prademanju agarwal : [1997]3scr508 .22. in estrella rubber v. dass estate pvt. ltd. : air2001sc3295 , the supreme court held that mere delay in making the amendment application is not enough to reject the application unless a new case is made out, or serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the other side so as to take away any accrued right ..... to quantification of the fee, some changes are sought to be introduced while retaining the total amount claimed in the original plaint, does not mean that the nature of relief claimed has undergone a material change. therefore, the grounds of rejection of amendments are legally unjustified and based on non-application of mind to the exact nature of amendments.'28. in sampath .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2002 (HC)

Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC251

..... srivastava, advocate withdrew from the case. it be also mentioned that the impugned order was passed on the application under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. for rejecting the plaint as early as on 27.9.1993, against which the defendant revisionist filed writ petition nos. 38645 of 1993 and 38647 of 1993. the writ petitions were entertained by this ..... revisions were heard on merits.20. the question whether the suit could proceed, or the plaint should be rejected go to very root of the matter. the exercise of powers in wrongly rejecting the plaint under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. or refusing to reject the plaint under the said provisions is jurisdictional matter. the court below, therefore, committed an error of ..... jurisdiction in not rejecting the plaint under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. and the said order could ..... b.k. rathi, j. 1. the above civil revisions were allowed by the judgment and order dated 25.7.2002 by which plaint of original suit no. 44 of 1993 and of original suit no. 45 of 1993 were quashed.2. the plaintiff-opposite party has moved an application for recall ..... 7.2002, nor there is any illegality in the order which might have resulted in injustice. accordingly, both applications for recalling the order dated 25.7.2002 are rejected. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 1969 (HC)

Gulab Rai Vs. Mangli Lal

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1885)ILR7All42

..... judge was a 'decree' within the meaning of section 2 of the civil procedure code; that it was appealable, and could not, therefore, be made the subject of revision.2. there can be no doubt that 'an order rejecting a plaint' is treated by the code as a 'decree,' under the express words of section 2, and ..... the learned pandit contends, that with reference to the provisions of the last paragraph of section 582, the word ' plaint,' as used in section 2, must be ..... of section 582 of the code, and the proposition of law laid down in that case may seem doubtful, but we are not directly concerned with the point decided in that case.4. in the civil procedure code there is no separate provision which allows the appellate court to 'reject' a memorandum of appeal on ..... the ground of its being barred by limitation. section 543 is limited to cases in which the memorandum of appeal is not drawn up in the manner prescribed by the code, and it ..... only by applying section 54(c), mutatis mutandis (as provided by the last part of section 582), to appeals that the code can be understood to make provision for rejection of appeals as barred by limitation. however, section 4 of the limitation act clearly lays down that every 'appeal presented after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2012 (HC)

Guru Kripa Manufacturing Private Ltd. Vs. M/S. Duro Pipe Industries Pr ...

Court : Allahabad

..... for seeking amendment of the plaint under order 6, rule 17 cpc. by an order dated 5.4.2012. the application under order 7 rule 11 cpc filed by the defendant was rejected and the plaintiff's application under order 6 rule 17 cpc for amending the plaint was allowed. a civil revision no. 188 of ..... " or supreme classic" or "reliance". a written statement and an additional written statement was filed by the defendants, denying the plaint allegations. the defendant also prayed for rejecting the plaint as barred under section 27 of the act. paras 21 to 31 of the written statement of defendants-appellants is quoted hereunder ..... where the trade mark was not registered, the prayer could not be granted, however, that itself would not mean that the suit itself be rejected, if other relief is still available to the plaintiff. so far as amendment is concerned, the revisional court observed that the plaintiff could have ..... the defendant-appellant on being served with the notices, filed objections on 18.07.2011 along with an application under order 7, rule 11 cpc alleging that the plaintiff admittedly do not have their trade mark registered with registrar of the trade mark under section 23 of the trade marks ..... 43 rule 1 (r) read with section 151 of code of civil procedure arising from an order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the additional district judge, court no. 14, district varanasi, allowing the application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 cpc of the plaintiff, for injunction restraining the defendants from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2006 (TRI)

Bank of Baroda Vs. Bombay Burma Trading Co. and ors.

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : 3(2006)BC104

..... 5, 7 and 10 without filing written statement filed a petition under the said provisions of cpc asking better particulars and also for deletion of their names from the proceedings and also for rejection of plaint against them. it should be mentioned here that the bank was asked by the tribunal as claimed ..... stage, the contesting defendants respondents had not filed their written statement and in such position, there was no scope to consider such applications of rejection of plaint or deleting of some of the defendants without ascertaining the liability, whether existing or not.6. in support of the contention of the appellant ..... controverted by the contesting respondents. it is too early to make a finding that the defendant nos. 3 to 11 have been misjoined in the plaint. moreover, such finding has been made, when defendant nos. 3 and 11 has never made any assertions regarding their non-liability. in such circumstances ..... of the contesting respondents, i have perused the records and find that although some sort of surmises were there in the different paragraphs of the plaint, but collusion have been asserted from the very beginning against all the defendants. moreover, in the objection filed against the applicants of the contesting ..... and order 6 rule 5 and order 7 rule 11 of the cpc read with section 151 of the cpc have been allowed and appellant bank was asked to delete the names of defendant nos, 3 to 11 from the plaint by filing amendment petition and for misjoinder of defendant nos. 4, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2000 (HC)

Rajendra Prakash Vs. Smt. Babita Gupta Alias Pratiba Gupta and Others

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2253

..... execution and registration of the saledeed or that there was a promise to pay or that there was any payment. therefore, at this stage the plaint cannot be rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.14. mr. prakash krishna had relied on a passage from mulla on the transfer of property act, 1882 at page 303 of the sixth edition ..... was an assurance by the husband of the plaintiff that such amount would be adjusted.5. the defendant had also made an application under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. this application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24th august, 1998. the learned ..... , which will be referred to at appropriate stage, mr. prakash krishna submits that it is abundantly clear that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and as such, it is to be rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. he had relied on some decisions in support of his contention in this respect as well. those decisions would ..... not otherwise. therefore. it is not a question which can be decided at this stage and the plaint should be rejected on the ground of absence of cause of action. he lastly contended that in view of the proviso to section 115 of the code of civil procedure, the order having not conclusively determined the right between the parties and having not resulted into any .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1947 (PC)

Ramzan Ali Vs. Mt. Satul Bibi and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1948All244

..... be debarred from coming to court with a proper application. i can see no reason for treating an application differently from a plaint which if rejected under order 7, rule 11, does not debar the plaintiff from filing a fresh plaint under rule 13.47. under the old code of civil procedure (xiv of 1882), an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis could be ..... rejected under section 405 if the application was not framed or presented in the manner prescribed by section 403 or 404. section 407 proviled for rejection only on four grounds which are now ..... whether an order setting aside an ex parte decree was as 'case decided', lindsay j. observed that no definition of the word 'case' was to he found in the code of civil procedure and probably no exhaustive definition of the word could' be given, but he had no doubt that proceedings-for restoration of a case dismissed in default or for setting aside ..... objection was taken in the court below that the application was barred by order 83, rule 15 of the code as a similar application had already been dismissed. the learned civil judge held that 'the previous application was not rejected on merits. it was rejected as it was not properly verified.10. ramzan ali, defendant 1, has therefore filed this application in revision and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 2008 (HC)

Smt. Hiramani Devi and anr. Vs. Sanjay Singh

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2009(1)AWC926

..... , this court is of the opinion that the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure provides that the plaint would be rejected if the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the ..... . the notices were issued to defendant-petitioner no. 1, who appeared and filed an objection under order vii, rule 11 alleging that the suit was undervalued, and consequently, the plaint should be rejected. it was alleged that the munsarim had given a wrong report with regard to the sufficiency of the court-fee.3. based on the aforesaid application, the plaintiff filed ..... to do so. it clearly provides that if an objection with regard to undervaluation is taken by the defendant and the court finds that the suit is undervalued, it cannot reject the plaint straightway, but permit the plaintiff to rectify the defect and only upon its failure to do so that the court would proceed to ..... reject the plaint. similarly, section 6 (5) of the court fees act, as applicable in the state of u.p., provides as under:6(5) in case the deficiency in court-fee is .....

Tag this Judgment!


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