Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.026 seconds)

Nov 10 1986 (HC)

Jagannath Prasad Vs. District Judge, Allahabad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-10-1986

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!

Jan 29 1986 (HC)

Bramhanand Rai and anr. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur an ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-29-1986

Reported in : AIR1987All100

..... copy of the plaint of suit no. 347 of 1951 the decree passed in that suit could not operate as res judicata in the present proceedings. in order to appreciate this argument of the learned counsel we may refer to the relevant provisions of section 11 of the code of civil procedure insofar as they ..... lugari rai son of mahadeo rai on 30-9-1954 and since then she has been in possession thereof. the consolidation officer who heard the objection rejected it on 9-8-1970. petitioners filed appeal to the settlement officer consolidation which was dismissed by the assistant settlement officer consolidation on 15-10-1971 ..... court having jurisdiction is as much binding between the parties as a right one and may be superseded only by appeals to higher tribunals or other procedure like review which the law provides. the learned judges of the high court who rendered the decision on 4-4-1952 had ample jurisdiction to ..... in nathai v. joint director of consolidation, allahabad and brij lal v. deputy director of consolidation, lucknow run contrary to the spirit of the procedural law which places the ex parte decree at par with ordinary decree except that the ex parte decree could be set aside on the defendant's ..... about satisfaction of any of the five ingredients of section 11, c.p.c., in our opinion, the non-filing of the copy of the plaint by the petitioners before the consolidation authorities is wholly immaterial. the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 placed reliance on the decision of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 1986 (HC)

Ram Autar Shastri Vs. Khurshid Alam Khan and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-13-1986

Reported in : AIR1987All279

..... number mentioned in the voters' list. there was no assistance provided to the returning officer to correlate and identify the proposer. the returning officer proceeded to reject the nomination paper. in this context the supreme court referring to the proviso to section 33(4) observed :--'the contents of the aforesaid proviso and the ..... of such a charge are liable to be struck off under order 6, rule 16, cpc. if the petition is based solely on these allegations which suffer from lack of material facts, the petition is liable to be summarily rejected for what of a cause of action.7. upon the question arising recently in azhar ..... was filed on the last date of limitation viz., dec. 12, 1985, deserves thus to be dismissed keeping in view order 7, rule 11 of civil p.c. read with section 87 of the representation of the people act, 1951.34. the petition is dismissed accordingly with costs to the respondent which i ..... the court does not have power to dismiss the petition in the absence to the disclosure of cause of action even in exercise of powers under the civil p. c.: --in view of this pronouncement there is no escape from the conclusion that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does ..... not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the civil p.c. so also it emerges from the aforesaid decision that appropriate orders in exercise of powers under the civil p.c. can be passed if the mandatory requirements enjoined by section 83 of the act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1986 (HC)

Ram Laxman Vs. Dr. J.C. Bass

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-10-1986

Reported in : AIR1987All1

..... was being done by the trial judge in the instant case.6. order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. which dealt with the rejection of the plaint, provides in clauses (a) and (d) asunder : --'11. rejection of plaint-- the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : -- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) & (c) x x x x ..... applicable and further that in the absence of any ground for .ejectment of the defendant permissible under that act under section 20 having been taken in the plaint, the plaint was liable to be rejected under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. his precise submission is that, inasmuch as, section 20(1) of u.p. act 13 of ..... may sometimes be necessary to await the evidence being recorded in a case.8. the case of the defendant in this court is that the plaint in the present suit was liable to be rejected under clause (d) of order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. the fact that this provision was not specifically referred to in the ..... for the ejectment of a lessee except on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 20, the plaint was liable to be rejected under order vii, rule 11(d), c.p.c. such rejection, if called for, is to be made at the outset in view of the dictum of a full bench of this ..... those made in the application 79/c, it cannot be said that the court has declined consideration of the question whether the plaint deserves to be rejected under rule 11(d) of order vii, c.p.c at the threshold.15. from the course of proceedings in the court below as brought out, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1986 (HC)

Ram Charan Vs. Bhola Shankar Maurya and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-16-1986

Reported in : AIR1987All134

..... essential requirement under section 83 of the act and consequently in view of the provisions contained in order vi, rule 16/order vii, rule 17, civil procedure code they would need be struck off. as i have mentioned already on these paragraphs being as well deleted there does not survive a cause of action ..... counting of the ballot papers on 6th mar., 1985. initially there were seven nominations for the seat, out of which that of the respondent 6 was rejected and hence the remaining six, including the petitioner alone, remained in the field. the respondent 1 was declared elected having secured 30,944 votes; the ..... relies; the requirement under clause (c) is that the petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the civil p.c. for the verification of pleadings. the proviso to this clause lays down that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice the petition shall ..... rules of court requires affidavit for purposes of the proviso to section 83(1) to be verified in the manner laid down in order xix, civil p.c. the supreme court laid emphasis in virendra kumar saklecha (supra) upon the nondisclosure of grounds or sources of information in verification contained in ..... be stated and the fact must be correlated to one of the heads of corrupt practice. as a plaint without disclosing a proper cause of action cannot be said to be a good plaint, so also an election petition without the material facts relating to the corrupt practice is no election petition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1986 (HC)

Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Ahmad Miya and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-18-1986

Reported in : AIR1987All335

..... no. 119 of 1985) till the disposal of suit no. 68 of 1977 filed by the first two opposite parties ahmad miya and idu miya. he has also rejected the prayer made by the present applicant for consolidation of the two suits under rule 1 of order iv-a, c.p.c.2. an ex parte decree ..... shorab merwanji modi v. mansata film distributors, air 1957 cal 727 at p. 734 to the effect that it might be possible that by looking at the plaint allegations of the two suits the court comes to the conclusion that the matter in issue between the parties in the two suits is substantially the same. these ..... the two suits. in exceptional circumstances it might be open to the court, where both the suits are pending, to take into account the allegations made in the plaint of the two suits. what is, however, usually insisted upon is that the question whether the issues in the two suits are substantially, the same, should be ..... trial judge has proceeded to take the view that the controversy in issue between the parties in both the suits is substantially the same on the basis of the plaint allegations in the two suits. he has, without giving any reasons, in effect, taken the view that it would he inexpedient to consolidate the suits.6. normally ..... a receiver has also been made by mohd yusuf in his suit no. 119 of 1985.4. the trial judge has taken the view that from the plaint of the two suits it was clear that the property involved in both the suits was the same and that the appropriate course would be to proceed with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1986 (HC)

Har NaraIn Vs. Vinod Kumar

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-15-1986

Reported in : AIR1987All319

..... 1951, which simply provides that every election petition shall be tried by the high court as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the civil p.c to the trial of suits. i need not dilate on the issue whether the provisions of order 47, rule 1 areapplicable to ..... religion, race, casts, community or language. in para 25 on page 636 in the case of azhar hussain( air 1986 sc1253) (supra), the supreme court rejecting the charge of corrupt practice by way of speech observed; 'no exact extracts from the speeches are quoted'. 26. moreover, the statement of fact published, ..... other persons with the consent of the respondent and his election agent is detailed hereinafter'. 14. in para 14 of the said decision, the supreme court rejecting the contention of the counsel for the appellant observed as under : --'even if this allegation is taken at its face value, there is no mention ..... ' would lead to an inevitable conclusion that the persons who participated in the rally raised the slogans with the express or implied consent of the appellant rejecting the contention of the appellant's counsel, the supreme court observed : 'we are, however, unable to draw this inference because it is well settled ..... is maintainable under section 151, read with order 6, rule 16. 3. the contention of sri tripathi is that the order dt. 13-12-1985 rejecting the application a-7 partly is erroneous, inasmuch as that runs counter to the decision of the supreme court in the case of azhar husain v. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1986 (HC)

Fabcon, Corporation Incorporated, in U.S.A. Vs. Industrial Engineering ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-17-1986

Reported in : AIR1987All338

..... this court for decision as contemplated under the proviso to section 104 of the patents act, 1970. this was opposed by the defendant. the application filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial court against which this revision is preferred by the plaintiff.3. having heard learned counsel for the parties i do not find merit in the revision. section ..... it is asserted that there is no valid patent held as such by the plaintiff and no relief can be had on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint subsequent to the defence being put in, there was an application filed by the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff asserted that the defendant be taken to have raised a counter-claim .....

Tag this Judgment!

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