Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 1989 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.024 seconds)

Nov 17 1989 (HC)

Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. M/S Shyam Lal Mahendra Kumar, Muza ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-17-1989

Reported in : AIR1990All129; (1990)1UPLBEC481

..... a discretion exercised by the trial court, which is not a case decided nor can such a discretion be interfered under section 115 of the code of civil procedure.11. in the result the revision fails and is hereby rejected. however, it is open, to the trial court to consider this aspect again if it so considers expedient.12. costs on parties.13. revision ..... applicants on 13-2-89 that issue no. 8 be decided as a preliminary issue. objections to this application were filed. the trial court vide order dated 9-3-89 rejected this application giving rise to the instant revision.6. learned counsel for the applicant sri g. p. bhargava has submitted that the court below has committed illegality in not deciding ..... not liable to be interfered as the issue regarding jurisdiction involve question of law and fact.7. to appreciate rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to advert to plaint allegations which is filed as annexure '1' to the counter affidavit alongwith other ann-exures. it emerges from the record that the applicant invited tenders enquiry for the supply of ..... section 115 of the civil procedure code has been preferred against the order dated 9-3-1989, passed by civil judge, muzaffarnagar, in original suit no. 225 of 1987, m/s. shyam lal mahendra kumar v. ghaziabad development authority', by which the application filed by the defendant for deciding the issue no. 8 regarding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue was rejected.2. facts in a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 1989 (HC)

Rakesh Singhal and Another Vs. Vth Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Bu ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-16-1989

Reported in : AIR1990All12

..... application for withdrawal of the suit as the purpose of the suit has been achieved by the injunction order. this application was definitely not a bona fide one. the learned civil judge rejected this application. but on revision, the court allowed the same conditionally on 4-2-1987. that order is not the subject-matter of controversy in the present writ ' petition ..... the basis of the sale deed dated 27-7-1981. it is the document of title and the basis of the suit. it has not been filed along with the plaint. it has been deliberately withheld by the plaintiff. the purpose of the suit appears to be to encroach upon the 6 feet wide passage and include the same within the ..... boundary wall. the learned civil judge granted the injunction on mere statement in the injunction application and the plaint which were in no way sufficient for granting such an injunction. if the plaintiff had filed the sale deed, then probably, the court ..... constructed the wall under the protection of injunctionorder resulting in narrowing down the passage by 6 feet. the map attached to the plaint was also misleading. neither, the sale deed nor its copy has been filed along with the plaint which would have clarified the claim of the plaintiff.7. the defendants moved an application (20-c) for removing the constructed wall .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1989 (HC)

Surendra Kumar and Another Vs. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-17-1989

Reported in : AIR1990All49

..... having granted, ho adjournment can be allowed. circumstances may be there which may prompt the court to allow the adjournments. likewise the circumstances may be there which may ultimately find rejection in the application for adjournment. it has now become a common practice withthe tenants to seek adjournments on frivolous grounds solely for the purpose to delay the proceedings where the ..... erred in decreeing the suit and has in fact acted in the exercise of the jurisdiction illegally and has committed material irregularity. once such an allegation was made in the plaint giving such a right to sri viredra kumar goel tomaintain the suit, it was necessary that the opposite party (plaintiff) should have established that he is the person entitled to ..... this case it may further be observed that the suit has been filed on behalf of the minor rajendra kumar agarwal by sri virendra kumar goyal. para 1 of the plaint discloses that one smt. shanti devi, widow of late kishan lal, during her lifetime had bequeathed her entire property in favour of one rajendra kumar agarwal. this will was registered ..... be the guardian. it was on this basis that sri virendra kumar goel has filed the suit on behalf of the minor. the plaint has been signed by sri virendra kumar goel and the verification of the plaint has also been done by him. there was no document on the record which would have suggested that virendra kumar goel has a right .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1989 (HC)

Rajnish Kumar and Another Vs. the District Judge, Pilibhit and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-22-1989

Reported in : AIR1991All25

..... of on their behalf as they were minors on the date of the sale and that the sale deed had not been executed for any legal necessity. the trial court rejected the impleadment application of respondents nos. 3, 4 and 5 mainly on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioners was primarily based on the assertion of the petitioners ..... , he had no right to continue to remain in possession of the disputed property. according to the petitioners, the shop in question marked abcd in the map attached to the plaint, originally belonged to respondent no. 2 and by virtue of a registered deed of sale, dated 24-5-1967, respondent no. 2 sold the said shop to the petitioners. however .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1989 (HC)

Babu Khan Vs. Smt. Chahti Devi

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-03-1989

Reported in : AIR1990All112

..... apparent that the court below did not act contrary to law, in any manner, in declining to exercise discretion under section 23 of the act and rejecting the prayer of the applicant for returning the plaint of the opposite parly. the impugned order is sound in law and does not warrant any interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction under section ..... there was a serious dispute of title of the property in suit and the court should exercise discretion under section 23 of the act to direct the return of the plaint.3. from a perusal of the impugned judgment it transpires that, on record, there exists a registered sale-deed executed by the applicant in favour of the opposite party in ..... defendant-applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 20th january, 1988, passed by the vith additional district judge, muzaffarnagar, rejecting his application under section 23 of the provincial small cause courts act, 1887 (hereinafter called the 'act') and declining to return the plaint of suit no. 24 of 1986.2. before the court below it was contended by the applicant that he .....

Tag this Judgment!

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