Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 1983 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.026 seconds)

Dec 16 1983 (HC)

Radhaswami Satsang Sabha Vs. Smt. Puttan (Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-16-1983

Reported in : AIR1984All198

..... to give necessary directions for suit being tried as the representative suit within the meaning and for the purpose of order 1. rule viii of the code of civil procedure',and in paragraph 12 it has been mentioned that--'in the circumstances it is advisable and necessary though not obligatory that in order to cut short ..... they wanted to be represented by the defendants through whom they were sought to be sued but that, by itself, would not be a sufficient ground to reject the prayer for leave under rule 8 of order 1. c.p.c. ultimately, the time spent in fulfilling the requirements of law in this respect ..... the c.a.c. they are defendants nos. 23 and 32 in the suit as is evident from a perusal of the certified copy of the amended plaint which was handed over by sri swami dayal, one of the counsel for the plain-tiffs-applicants after obtaining it on october 31, 1983.10. annexure ..... was to allow the plaintiffs to add the members of the council to the appeals pending before the high court......... thereafter, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. the defendants and the members of the council filed two miscellaneous petitions ......... the written statements which had been filed ..... to the high court........ the result is. by the consent the appeals before us are allowed, the plaintiffs are allowed to amend the plaint subject to the modification indicated in the course of this judgment and and the members of the council as additional defendants to their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1983 (HC)

Kisan Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Paper Mills and ors ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-05-1983

Reported in : AIR1984All143

..... about addition of a new party is impermissible vide dip-chand doulatram v firm of parmanand chimandas reported in air 1924 sind 144 which posited:--'civil procedure code, order 6, rule 17 amendment taking away defendant's legal right to plead bar of limitation should not be allowed unless there are special ..... is plaintiffs revision against the order dated 16-12-1980 re-corded by shri p. c. joshi, civil judge, pilibhit, in original suit no. 10 of 1974, application for amendment paper no. 43-kha was rejected by the impugned order.2. it appears that original suit no. 16 of 1974 was filed by ..... in the suit. (ii) all the same, substitution of one cause of action or the nature of the claim for another in the original plaint or change of the subject-matter of or controversy in the suit is not permissible. (iii) introduction by amendment of inconsistent or contradictory allegations in ..... considerations.''25. the principles established by judicial decisions in respect of amendment of plaint are as follows vide kanai-lal v. jiban reported in : air1977cal189 (i) all amendments will be generally permissible when they are necessary for ..... date.' 24. thus, it was incumbent on plaintiff-revisionist to establish that the omission to include the proposed respondent amongst the defendants in the plaint was due to a mistake made in good faith. surprisingly no affidavit was annexed with the application paper 44-ga dated 6-4-1978. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1983 (HC)

Lal Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. Bagesara and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-31-1983

Reported in : AIR1984All231

..... its territorial, pecuniary or inherent jurisdiction. similarly, where any suit cannot be entertained due to a bar created under any statute, the court may likewise reject the plaint in view of any of the contingencies mentioned in rule 11. even in a contested suit, if the defendant raises the plea of jurisdiction, the ..... appear to be wholly correct. in every case, it has to be seen whether on the allegations made in the plaint the suit was not maintainable in the civil court if so, the plaint had to be returned. but if the question of jurisdiction depends on decision of other questions on merit, then it ..... issue and merely decided the issue of jurisdiction. it too came to the conclusion that the suit was not triable by the civil court. accordingly it directed return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. against this decision, both the parties have felt aggrieved and have filed those first appeals from ..... , enable the courtto sustain it. if on the basis of those allegations, a suit can prima facie be maintained in the civil court, the court will proceed further with such a plaint and give an opportunity to the defendant to contest it. if, however, on the basis of the evidence led before it ..... holdings act, the trial court framed as many as 8 issues and recorded findings on all of them. it also came to the conclusion that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. in view of this finding, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. in appeal the lower appellate court did not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1983 (HC)

K.K. Somani Vs. D.K. Somani and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-27-1983

Reported in : [1986]59CompCas910(All)

..... any order passed by the court on the application or on any issue raised therein and tried separately, an appeal shall lie on the groundsmentioned in section 100, civil procedure code 1908. (a) if the order be passed by a district court, to the high court; (b) if the order be passed by a single judge ..... person aggrieved, or any member of the company, or the company, may apply to the court for rectification of the register. (2) the court may either reject the application or order rectification of the register ; and in the latter case, may direct the company to pay the damages/if any, sustained by any party ..... . 'from any order passed by the court on the application' has to be read with sub-clause (2) which provides that the 'court may either reject the application, or order rectification of the register.' the impugned order is not 'any order passed by the court on the application'. it is an order ..... defendants nos. 2 to 5 for a declaration that the transfer is void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. annexure ca-2 is a copy of the plaint.6. late h. k. somani and smt. saroj somani, wife of the petitioner, held 19,900 shares. on november 16, 1974, these shares were transferred ..... , then, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the matter may be decided expeditiously by the high court instead of relegating the parties to a civil suit which is likely to take years for decision. it is, therefore, a relevant circumstance for the exercise of the discretion by the court for entertaining .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 1983 (HC)

Ram Bharosey Lal Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Chakkiwala and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-01-1983

Reported in : AIR1984All167

..... correction to be made. the correction was actually made on may 16, 1975. an application to recall the order of correction made by the judgment-debtors was rejected. therefore, they assailed the order of correction in a revision before the district judge but the revision was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable ..... a house of which description, with reference to boundaries, was also contained in the plaint. the decree was assailed in this court but affirmed however, there was an error in the decree prepared by the office of the first court, inasmuch as ..... . 1. ram bharosey lal, who is applicant before this court in the present revision under section 115, c. p. c. obtained a decree for rejectment of ram-eshwar dayal chakkiwala as well as ashok kumar, the two opposite parties in this revision. this was on april 23. 1975 and related to ..... the error in the court of the first instance. he has read out the objects and reasons which show that the provision was introduced in the civil p. c. on account of conflict in opinion in the high courts as to whether it was the appellate court or the trial court which could ..... of the description, the decree could not be executed. the matter was decided by the executing court by its order of july 12. 1977. the learned civil judge, who heard the matter, after discussing the legal position and referring to several decisions in an elaborate order took the view that the trial court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1983 (HC)

Brahma Swaroop and ors. Vs. Shamsher Bahadur

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-21-1983

Reported in : AIR1984All14

..... the appeal, on the ground that he was busy in other cases and was unable to attend that court on that day. 2. the lower appellate court's order rejecting the application for adjournment runs thus : '25-3-81 : sri k. chandra for appellant. the respondent who was present a little while ago is absent now. ..... from demolishing a wall a b as shown in the plaint map. the trial court had dismissed the suit and the decree under appeal was passed by the court, of the civil judge, rampur on 26th mar., 1981, on appeal from the trial court's decree, after rejecting the application moved on behalf of the defendants, who were ..... 198l and allowing it by judgment dated 26th mar,, 1981. 7. the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. civil appeal no. 1 of 1981 of the district court, rampur, shall stand restored to its original number and be heard afresh in accordance with law. the district judge, ..... 47 referred to bythe learned civil judge does not in any manner control the adjournment of the hearing of an appeal from ..... did not notice that order 17 of the civil p. c. applies to the original trial of a suit, and not to the hearing of an appeal from the trial court's decree in a suit the procedure for hearing of an appeal is prescribed by order 41 of the civil p. c. and rule 1 of order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 1983 (HC)

State of U.P. Vs. Thakur Kundan Singh

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-10-1983

Reported in : AIR1984All161

..... decreed by the court below.30. learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, however, placed considerable stress on the letter of the chief engineer whereby he rejected the claim of the plaintiff and submitted that the court below has erred in not considering the facts stated by the chief engineer in the said letter ..... which is exhibit a-4 printed at page 225 of the paper book.31. we reject the above argument. for, the recitals in this letter of the chief engineer cannot by themselves constitute substantive evidence. the chief engineer not having entered ..... . c. failed to achieve any response from the defendant. in these circumstances the suit which was filed within three years of the communication of the rejection of the plaintiff's claim by the chief engineer was within time. in any case it was filed within time even from the date of submission ..... but the claim in suit was not for the price of work done but for enhanced rates in view of altered circumstances.'22. again while rejecting the plea of the defendant that a suit would be barred by limitation in any case under article 115 of the limitation act, 1908 which ..... six per cent per annum. the court below having decreed the suit for those reliefs, the defendant has filed this first appeal.2. shortly, the plaint case was that the plaintiff firm was given a contract by the local self government engineering department, saharanpur for laying down sewer lines at dehradun. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1983 (HC)

Chandrika Prasad Vs. Assistant Engineer, Iii Northern Railway and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-09-1983

Reported in : II(1984)ACC355; AIR1984All101

..... an application for compensation. if the claimant gives all the information available to him and files an application within time prescribed, the application cannot be rejected as defective and the tribunal may give time to the claimant to furnish the remaining particulars after making necessary inquiries.24. there is still another ..... no. 1 filed written statement-paper no. 29-kha on 16-9-1975. on 13-11-1975 the tribunal allowed the application for amendment of plaint vide paper no. 16-kha after hearing counsel for the parties. evidence of the parties commenced on 13-11-1975 and continued up to 21-11 ..... took place. it does not provide for the title of suits being givea in the manner provided in form 1 of appendix 'a' of the civil p. c.22. the absence of any title of the application in the prescribed form for the application for compensation obviously means that the rules ..... and residence) ... ...defendant' 20. form 2 of appendix 'a' of the civil p. c. gives description of parties in particular cases.21. the form of application for compensation prescribed under rule 3 of the u. p. motor accidents claims tribunal rules ..... particulars of any of the paras, particularly paras 16 and 17.19. the matter may be looked at from another angle. form 1 of appendix 'a' to the civil p. c. gives the title of suits as below :'in the court ofa, b, (add description and residence) .. ...plaintiff.against c, d, (add description .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1983 (HC)

Bhola Nath and ors. Vs. Maharao Raja Saheb Bundi State

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-01-1983

Reported in : AIR1984All60

..... decreed by the trial court, but was dismissed on appeal by the plaintiff. bedi filed a second appeal in this court. that was dismissed on the ist dec. 1959. the plaint goes on to state that it is apparent from the aforesaid fact that bedi could not get possession of the pond under the patta executed by the defendant rather the ..... the patta in his favour, and, under the terms of the patta. he is a permanent licensee and not liable to ejectment from the pond. by an amendment of the plaint. it was pleaded that pattas were granted to the plaintiff's ancestors from time to time and the last such document was ext. a-5 for the period 15th july .....

Tag this Judgment!

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