Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 1982 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.024 seconds)

Jan 07 1982 (HC)

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

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-07-1982

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!

Jan 04 1982 (HC)

QamaruddIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-04-1982

Reported in : AIR1982All169

..... the details of which were given in the plaint.3. the suit was resisted by the union of india on a variety of grounds. in para 19 of the written statement, it was pleaded by the union of india that the notice under section 80 of the code of civil procedure was defective and illegal. on merits as ..... passed, as also on the date when the order of dismissal was served on him and on the date on which the appeal filed by him was rejected. it was submitted on his behalf that the particular act which gave the plaintiff his cause of complaint was the order of dismissal itself and this ..... against him and he was served with a charge-sheet, which ultimately resulted into his dismissal from his service. he preferred an appeal against that order which was also rejected. then he gave a notice dated 4th dec., 1968, through sri gopal krishna srivastava, advocate, to the general manager, n. e. rail-way, gorakhpur. ..... not at all heard in person or that no copies of the relevant documents were furnished to him, or that the evidence was taken behind his back. the plaint, no doubt, gives the details of those facts on which the order of dismissal was impugned. the notice was, however, silent on the point. as pointed ..... and, therefore, the suit founded on that notice was not sustainable.5. t have carefully gone through the notice, ext. a-l and have also perused the plaint. section 80, c. p. c. requires the giving of a notice to the union of india before filing a suit against it. it mandates the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1982 (HC)

Shyam Nath and ors. Vs. Durga Prasad Etc.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-04-1982

Reported in : AIR1982All474

..... disputed house was attached in the execution of the decree aforesaid. objections were filed by smt. yashoda under order 21, rule 58, c. p. c. which were rejected on 22nd oct., 1932. the proceedings in execution continued. ram sunder, decree-holder, purchased the house in execution of the decree against beni madho on 16th nov., ..... beni madho was in possession of the property and the objector smt. yashoda had nothing to do with it. it was mentioned in ext. 1, the plaint of suit under order 21, rule 63 that smt. yashoda was the sole owner of the disputed property and defendant no. 2, beni madho had no ..... investigation, against future claims by the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor except to the limited extent of the dispute being taken to court by a regular civil suit within the period of limitation of one year. it is clear that the rules are framed with the object that, once a claimant or objector ..... the respondent by the learned counsel for the appellant. he argued that the present appeals were filed in may, 1977 i.e. after the enforcement of the civil p. c. (amendment) act, 1976. the learned counsel argued that in rule 22 of order 41 an explanation was added to sub-rule (1), whereby ..... left it open for being considered by the lower appellate court itself. after setting aside the remand order the appeals were heard by sri d. p. gupta, civil judge, mirzapur. he dismissed both the appeals. on the point of parentage of smt. yashoda he adopted the finding of sri k. c. singh, his predecessor .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 1982 (HC)

Brij Basi Vs. Moti Ram and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-05-1982

Reported in : AIR1982All323

..... if the oral evidence leads to a positive conclusion one way or the other the opinions of experts have to yield or have to be accepted or rejected in accordance with the finding arrived at on an appraisal of direct oral evidence. it is only where there is no direct evidence that expert evidence becomes ..... madewithin his knowledge. the lower appellate court could not have doubted the genuineness or the authenticity of the record of the trial court certified by the learned civil judge in his own hand and dated signatures, to the effect that the thumb impressions were taken before him. the correction of the names of dauji ..... read the oral evidence and also read the appraisal of it that has been made by the trial court in its finding on issue no. 1. the learned civil judge, mr. p. c. saxena, who tried the suit and gave judgment for the plaintiff against defendants nos. 1 and 2 had the added advantage of ..... the lower appellate court was whether the defence put on behalf of narottam was enter-tainable at all. the case before the lower appellate court was a civil case and not a sessions trial. to me it appears inconceivable to accept an argument that the signatures of a party on his written statement and ..... did not authorise the lower appellate court to pass a decree against the third defendant on a cause of action wholly different from that pleaded in the plaint and that too as if by way of punishing the third defendant for the offence of having forged the promissory note, it was urged in this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1982 (HC)

Hari Prasad Vs. Tax Recovery Commissioner and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-02-1982

Reported in : (1983)32CTR(All)183; [1984]145ITR48(All)

..... certificate, have also all the powers which- (a) a collector has under the revenue recovery act, 1890 (1 of 1890), (b) a civil court has under the code of civil procedure, 1908 (v of 1908), for the purpose of the recovery of an amount due under a decree (7) save in accordance with the provisions of ..... of land revenue. in doing so, the collector shall have all the powers which a collector has under the revenue recovery act or a civil court has under the cpc for the purpose of the recovery of the amount due under a decree. the proceedings for the recovery are required to be commenced within ..... . sri pyarimohan samanturay, : air1976sc2617 , it was found that even though a cause of action arose to the petitioner as far back as 1962, on the rejection of his representation on november 9, 1962, he allowed some eleven years to go by before filing the writ petition. there being no satisfactory explanation of the ..... by the collector, deoria. on july 12, 1953, sri khandelia filed an objection before the collector, deoria, against this attachment. the objection was rejected and he then filed a civil suit for injunction ; but, withdrew it with permission to file a fresh suit. then, he filed suit no. 22 of 1961, in the ..... attempt was made to raise this plea for the first time in the first appeal no. 245 of 1961, by an application for amendment of the plaint in january, 1977. that application was dismissed by the court as mala fide on 10th february, 1977. it has also been averred that the petitioner is .....

Tag this Judgment!


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