Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 1932 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.025 seconds)

Jan 25 1932 (PC)

Bhajja Vs. Mohammad Said Khan

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-25-1932

Reported in : AIR1932All543

..... right to sue accrues when a right has been infringed and there is a remedy recognized by law. an. examination of some of the provisions of the code of civil procedure would show that the legislature had this distinction clearly in mind. section 20 prescribes that every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of ..... of action, do not also contemplate any rule of limitation barring the claim.6. order 7, rule 11, also enjoins upon the court the duty to reject the plaint in every case where it does not disclose a cause of action. it is not confined to suits in forma pauperis. rule 13 of that order allows ..... we think that when the court found that the plaintiff was a pauper and was unable to pay the court-fees, it ought not to have rejected the plaint on the mere ground that in its opinion the claim, if entertained, would be barred by time. that is a question which can be properly decided after ..... the-defendant can move the court, or the court may act suo motu under order 7, rule 11 (d), and reject the plaint on the. ground that the suit 'appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred' by the law of limitation.9. in the present case the court below has not only gone into the ..... duty to 'dismiss the suit.' on the other hand, order 7, rule 11, enjoins a duty to 'reject' the plaint when it does not disclose a cause of action. the dismissal of the suit and the rejection of the plaint are not identical terms. in one case a decree is passed, in the other case it is merely an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 1932 (PC)

Piare Lal Vs. Bhagwan Das and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-02-1932

Reported in : AIR1933All295; 145Ind.Cas.436

..... application. then what about the unnecessary costs to be incurred by the parties in going over the same procedure which had been already gone through. section 151, civil p.c., says:nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as ..... , so that the real controversy between the parties may be determined? there can be no doubt that order 33, rule 5 empowers a court to reject an application for permission to. sue as a pauper if it is not properly framed as directed therein; but this. can only mean that no amendments ..... four applications in revision and are directed against four orders by which the petitions of the applicant for permission to sue as a paper have been rejected. it appears that the applicant peare lal filed four applications in the same court for permission to sue as a pauper. the applications were directed ..... we can in this connexion also refer to section 99, civil p.c., as having been framed with the same object in view. it is a matter of history now that there was a time when suits were dismissed and plaints were rejected because the plaints were not properly verified. section 153 says not only that ..... to sue as a pauper and thereby converts the application into a plaint, no revision is maintainable to contest the validity of the order accepting the application for permission to sue as a pauper; but where the order is one rejecting the application and thereby putting an end to the proceedings before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1932 (PC)

Aziz Ullah Khan and ors. Vs. Court of Wards

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-19-1932

Reported in : AIR1932All587

..... earlier portion of the judgment, the court observed:no doubt the insolvency court has the same jurisdiction that the ordinary courts of law possesses under the civil procedure code to correct any mistake either of a clerk or of the parties themselves upon a question of fact, when a mistake is established.6. this ..... schedule at the amount claimed by the applicant himself. subsequently the applicant made a second application for correction to the same court. the insolvency court rejected the application and it was held in revision by a bench of this court that section 152 did not apply so as to enable the insolvency ..... in nawadiya zamania nagla.3. the mortgagee then applied to the trial judge asking him under section 152 to amend the decree. the subordinate judge rejected the application on the ground that his decree had become merged in that of the district judge and he had no jurisdiction to amend the decree. ..... case were very similar to the facts of the case before us and the court ordered the correction of the documents in question, namely, the plaint, the decree and other documents. we see no reason why these decisions of this court should not be followed as they are in accordance with the ..... has been further argued that the court below purports to act under section 152, civil p.c., only and that section can only apply in terms to the amendment of the decrees and not to the amendment of the plaint, sale certificate and dakhalnama. this contention, no doubt, is correct, but the power .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 1932 (PC)

Mangal Misir and anr. Vs. Ramlagan Misir and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-20-1932

Reported in : AIR1933All65

..... commissioners, it must be assumed that the court regarded the work done by each preceding commissioner to be so bad as to entail the rejection of his report and, accordingly, the report of the first commissioner should not have been taken into consideration by the lower appellate court, ..... witnesses, during the course of their examination, in the avitness box. but this disadvantage, that obviously is directly attributable to the laxity of procedure that marks and characterizes the orders about the appointment of commissioners passed by the trial court, dwindles into insignificance, when one considers the lamentable avaste ..... the various objections levelled against the reports of the commissioners appointed by him, nor did he, by appointing a new commissioner, intend to reject the report of the previous commissioner. the fact that it is so is demonstrated by his freely drawing upon all the four reports in ..... state of affairs disclosed above, obviously, gives rise to the following questions: (1) had the. trial court in mind the provisions of the civil procedure code as regards the appointment of commissioners and the treatment of their reports, or did it take the trouble to refer to those provisions before passing ..... a remarkable degree the extent to which the salutary provisions as to the appointment of commissioners contained in section 75 and order 26, rule 9, civil p.c., in consequence of the disregard of the provisions of clause (3), rule 10, order 26, are liable to be abused with .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 1932 (PC)

Ram Shankar Vs. Secretary of State and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-23-1932

Reported in : AIR1932All575

..... the petitioner and the crown.' the east india company did not occupy the same position in india as the crown did in england, and therefore the procedure are so under the rule of the company that a certain liability attached for certain purposes to the east india company. that liability has been continued against ..... review. further that the claim of the plaintiff should have been allowed on the merits.2. the claim of the plaintiff as set forth in his plaint was that one damodar das proprietor of a printing press was adjudicated insolvent and the official receiver of the time was appointed receiver of the insolvent's ..... dayaram v. secy. of state : air1927all672 , where it was held that the person who pays takavi under protest, has a right to sue in the civil court under section 183, land revenue act.13. there is an important doctrine in english law to the effect that the crown cannot be liable for the acts ..... position of the official receiver we are of opinion that it would have been necessary to give him the two months notice prescribed by section 80, civil p.c., and we are further of opinion that as his name was not brought on the record until a period of three years had elapsed ..... that the suit was barred by three years limitation against the official receiver and was not maintainable against him for want of notice under section 80, civil p.c. that the suit could not succeed against the secretary of state because the official receiver had done nothing for which his principal may be held .....

Tag this Judgment!


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