Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1987All317
..... to a court having jurisdiction to determine the title. (2) when a court returns a plaint under sub-section (1), it shall comply with the provisions of the second paragraph of section 57 of the code of civil procedure and make such order with respect to costs as it deems just and the court shall ..... that on 15th feb. 1980, the petitioner's application under section 23 of the provincial small cause courts act was rejected by the court. that order became final. once the order became final, it was not open to the petitioner to move a second application on ..... . after a year, on 7th january 1981, another similar application was moved under section 23 of the provincial small cause courts act. this application was rejected by order dated 25th march, 1982. against the order dated 25th march, 1982, revision was filed by the petitioner before the revisional court. the revision ..... with the allegation that the judge, small causes court, had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaint was liable to be returned for presentation to the proper court this application was rejected by the judge, small causes court on 15th feb. 1980, holding that the court did not consider it ..... parties.learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court below acted illegally and without jurisdiction in exercise of its jurisdiction in not returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court, as the question of title was involved in the present suit.5. at the outset, it may be stated .....Tag this Judgment!
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!
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!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC898; (2002)2UPLBEC1060
..... defendant in the suit have yet not filed written statement. they made request for rejection of the plaint under order vii, rule 11. c.p.c. read with section 151 of c.p.c. the said application has been rejected by the learned civil judge (senior division), aligarh, by the impugned order dated 24.1.2002. aggrieved ..... of the land in appropriate form.' (emphasis given)4. that in compliance of the order of the hon'ble supreme court objections were filed which were rejected and the mandi fee has been assessed. therefore, according to the direction of the hon'ble supreme court, the right to realise the tax is being ..... vii, rule 11, c.p.c. came for consideration before the apex court. it was observed 'that if on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in (he sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, 'the court should exercise its power under order vii. ..... the board to revise the orders; that, therefore, the recourse should have been taken to the provisions of the code and the remedy provided in the code itself; that, therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court provided under section 9 of c.p.c. is impliedly barred.8. the learned counsel has further argued that ..... shall be deemed to be a sale and mandi fee is payable on the same.7. it has also been argued that the adhiniyam is self-contained code. section 25 of the adhiniyam provides for the appeal to the board against the orders of the committee imposing tax under section 17 of the adhiniyam .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All635
..... were referred to the full bench: '(1) whether while rejecting the application for permission to sue as a pauper the court can under s, 149, civil p. c. allow the applicant to pay the requisite 'court-fee and treat the application as a plaint? (2) whether after rejecting the application for permission to sue as a pauper, can ..... to sue in 'forma pauperis' was still pending or at the time of refusing to grant leave, the court could grant time under section 149 of the code to pay the court-fees. 19. we are, therefore, of opinion that the order of 16-3-1946 does not amount to an order refusing to allow ..... the court-fee, but you can claim the other reliefs if you pay the court-fee within the time allowed to you under section 149. of the code.' again, at the same page he observes when considering an alternative view about the nature of the document containing the prayer for permission to sue as a ..... the same conclusion. at p. 155 he said: 'but where an application is still pending and at that stage the court grants time under section 149 of the code, rule-15 cannot be made applicable.' he formulated the question for consideration thus at the same page: - 'the question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether ..... the time of refusing to grant leave, the court could grant time under section 149 of the code to pay the court-fees and if the court-fees were paid within the time allowed by the court, the plaint could be deemed, to have been filed on the date on which the application for leave .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All825
..... doubt true that the calcutta high court in some cases has taken the view that a court had no jurisdiction under section 151 to restore a plaint which had been rejected under order 7, rule 11, civil p. c. we do not consider it desirable to enter into the question whether the view taken by the calcutta high court was the right view ..... had made its order refusing to do so on 26-9-1950. 5. it has been held in this court that an order of rejection of a plaint can be set aside under the provisions of section 151, civil p. c. this has been so held by allsop j., in anant prasad singh v. chaunnu tewari : air1939all452 . allsop j. for his view relied ..... mukerji, j. 1. this is an application in revision against an order of the learned .civil judge granting time to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court-fees after the plaint had been rejected under order 7, rule 11 (c) of the code of civil procedureon the ground that the plaint had been insufficiently stamped. 2. it is necessary to state a few dates in ..... -fees was due to that fact. on 25-8-1950, a formal order of rejection in respect of the plaint was made under order 7, rule 11 (c) of the code. subsequently, the plaintiff made an application for reviewing the order of rejection of the plaint. that application for review was also rejected on 28-9-1950. subsequently, on 31-10-1950 the plaintiff made an .....Tag this Judgment!
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 : 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!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1986All290
..... the foot as required by order vi, rule 15 of the code of civil procedure. i do not agree with the submission. order vi, rule 15 does not mean that the verification should have been done at the foot of the plaint, without any gap, and that should be written in continuity ..... constituted a defect of substantial character under sub-section (4) of section 36, on ground of which the returning officer was fully justified in having rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner no. 1.11. lastly, sri srivastava argued that though in the written statement, the respondent denied the certified ..... in the nomination paper. hence as per chapter vi para 1 j (xiii) in the handbook for returning officer the nomination paper is hereby rejected.'the form of the nomination papers, which is form 2-b, is reproduced below :--nomination paper 'election to the legislative assemblyof.............. (state)i ..... of electoral roll and photostat copy of the high school certificate having been filed with the nomination forms, was inserted after the scrutiny and rejection of the nomination forms. it is averred that the failure to specify age in the nomination forms constituted a defect of substantial character within ..... to rectify the mistake; that the petitioner no. 1 having been fully qualified to contest the election and his nomination forms having been illegally rejected by the returning officer, the election of the respondent deserves to be declared as void.3. the respondent filed his written statement denying the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1978All66
..... right. hence i would not allow the amendment application at this stage.' 4. for the appellant it was urged that the appellate court below had erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. it was submitted that the trial court had held that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property in question. that being so, the appellant was entitled ..... , the plaintiffs could claim for delivery of possession of the property provided that relief was not barred by limitation or any other law. it is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the ..... possession. on these findings, the suit was dismissed. 2. the plaintiff ganpat singh filedan appeal against that decision in thecourt of the district judge. the appealwas heard by ii temporary civil andsessions judge, pratapgarh who dismissed it. the plaintiff ganpat singh has nowcome to this court on second appeal. 3. before the appellate court below an application, 17 ka was moved ..... amendment application 17 ka is set aside. the amendment application given by the plaintiff appellant is allowed in consequence the impugned decree passed by the learned ii temporary civil and sessions judge, pratapgarh has to be set aside and the case will have to be remanded. 5. the appeal is accordingly allowed and the decree passed by the appellate .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1982All309
..... (air 1973 sc 171), p. ven-kateswarlu v. motor & general traders (air 1975 sc 1409) and ayesha khatoon v. durga sahaya (air 1977 cal 108). the court below has, however, rejected the application on the ground that by the amendment sought for the plaintiffwants to substitute a relief for prohibitory injunction instead of mandatory injunction. the learned counsel submitted that the ..... ordert.s. misra, j.1. this revision is directed against an order passed by the court below rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the amendment of the plaint was asked for keeping in view the amendment made in the provisions of sections 134 to 136, u. p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act. he says ..... is allowed. the impugned order dated 7-2-1978 is set aside and the court below is directed to consider the plaintiff's application a-51 for amendment of the plaint in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. as none appears to contest the application, i make no order as to costs. ..... below erred in not considering each amendment sought for by the plaintiff in the plaint. there is force in the contention. it is quite manifest from the impugned order that the court below had considered only one out of several amendments sought for by the plaintiff and had rejected the entire application. this was not in consonance with law. obviously the court .....Tag this Judgment!