Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 12 results (0.108 seconds)

Aug 17 1992 (HC)

Kashi Nath Misra Vs. Vikramaditya and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-17-1992

Reported in : AIR1993All32; (1992)2UPLBEC1239

..... and must be dismissed under the provisions of civil procedure code if the mandatory requirement enjoined by s. 83 to incorporate the material facts and particulars relating to the alleged corrupt practice in the election petition are not complied with. as a plaint in a civil suit can be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action under ..... back by the presiding officer. requirement of signature of presiding officer being mandatory, assertion of the petitioner that his ballot appers bereft of signatures were wrongly rejected, has no legal basis. in sub-para (xxxviii) of para 15 it is stated that objections were raised against the ballot papers being mixed up. ..... and claiming a recount thatthe application for inspection must be considered.' 12. in view of r. 56(3) of the rules which states that before rejecting any ballot paper under sub-rule (2), the returning officer shall allow to each counting agent present a reasonable opportunity of inspecting the ballot papers, the ..... opportunity ofacquainting himself with the manner in which the ballot boxes were scrutinised and opened and votes were counted. he has also opportunity of inspecting the rejected ballot papers and of demanding a recount. it is in the light of the provisions of s. 83(1) which requires aconcise statement of material ..... order1. this is an application under o.6, r. 16, read with o.7, r. 11 of the code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) and s. 86(1) of the representation of people act, 1951 (briefly, the act) by respondent no. 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1992 (HC)

Kailash Nath Singh Vs. the District Judge, Mirzapur and Anothers

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-16-1992

Reported in : AIR1993All67

..... prayer of amendment in the injunction application and also rightly observed that while considering a miscellaneous appeal the appellate court can-not allow and amendment in the plaint. he cannot travel beyond the pleas on the basis of which a trial court has passed an order of injunction, one way or the other. if ..... in last june and wanted to make pakka house over it. according to him, the balance of convenience was in favour of the defendant. the learned civil judge has observed that to consider the case of the parties, sufficient evidence would be required to find out which of the two versions is correct, ..... court passed an order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendant from raising construction over the land in dispute.3. aggrieved by the order of the learned civil judge dated 21-8-1991 defendants filed miscellaneous appeal no. 22 of 1991 before the district judge, mirzapur who by his order dated 21-5-1992 ..... order1. the petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the district judge, mirzapur dated 21-5-1992, allowing the appeal against the order of the civil judge, in the matter of injunction.2. petitioner, kailash nath singh filed a suit as suit no. 147 of 1991 (kailash nath singh ..... rejecting an amendment will be presumed. in support of this contention, he placed reliance on a full bench decision reported in ilr-v, ald as well as some other cases.9. the powers of appellate courts are the same as are conferred by this code to the trial court. by virtue of order 43, rule 2, cpc .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1992 (HC)

Makhu Lal Vs. Bachcha Pathak

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-05-1992

Reported in : AIR1992All358

..... was curable, the supreme court said that' ..... it isimpossible to accept the contention that a defect in verification which is to be made in the manner laid down in the code of civil procedure, 1908, for the verification of pleadings as required by cl. (c) of sub-sec. (1) of s. 83 is fatal to the maintainability of the petition.'6. it is ..... court as nearly may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the code of civil procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits. the election petitions are, therefore, to be tried as far as possible applying the procedure as contained in the c.p.c. the question for considerations is whether the omission of verification of the plaint under c.p.c. entails a fatal defect ..... order1. this is an applicationunder o. 6, r. 16, o.7, r. 11 and s. 151 of the code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) and under s. 86(1) of the representation of people act, 1951 (briefly, the act 1951) to dismiss the election petition of the petitioner and to strike ..... of the respondent, a returned candidate on the grounds abc and d as contained in para 7 of the petition. grounds a and b relate to improper reception and improper rejection of a large number of votes. ground c relates to non-compliance of provisions of the constitution, of the act 1951 and the rules and orders made under the act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1992 (HC)

Mohd. Farooq Vs. District Judge, Allahabad and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-25-1992

Reported in : AIR1993All8

..... no. 4 in the plaint. the application for impleadment was opposed by therespondents. the petitioner submitted that he is a necessary party, and his rights and interests in the property in question is likely to be affected unless he is impleaded in the suit as a party.3. the application for impleadment was rejected by the learned civil judge on the ground that ..... right of the plaintiff which amounts to a judgment. the division bench of the delhi high court was pleased to observe that though an order under o. 1 r. 10 cpc is appealable before a division bench. the other point in the said decision of the delhi high court is that addition of a necessary party may be allowed to avoid ..... . the case law cited is of no assistance for the decision of the present case. the law is settled on the point that the plaintiff is sole architect of his plaint. it is the plaintiff who has a right to choose his own adversary against whom he seeks a relief. in the present case, there is no allegation or any cause ..... suit or a proceeding, there is likelihood of further litigation in the same matter. the facts of the present case are altogether different. the petitioner after having failed in the civil revision has now come to this court under art. 226 of the constitution of india. a relief which could have been given by the court below under art. 226. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1992 (HC)

M/S. Triveni Structurals Ltd., Vs. M/S. Newage Enterprises, Allahabad

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-18-1992

Reported in : AIR1993All78

..... any injunction.9. in reply to the above arguments the learned counsel for the respondent, referred to r. 2 of o. xxxix of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as code). it reads as under:--2. injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.-- (1) in any suit for restraining the defendant from committing ..... issued. this order is cryptic and quite in disregard of the mandate of proviso quoted above.21. rule 3a of o. xxxix of the code added by the cpc (amendment) act 1976 also proyides that where an ex parte injunc-tion has been granted endeavour should be made to finally dispose of the ..... is allowed with costs. the order of the court below is set aside and the application for temporary injunction of the respondent is rejected.24. let a copy of this judgment be sent to all the district judges for circulation amongst all the judicial officers for their guidance.25. appeal ..... a copy of the application for injunction together with- (i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application; (ii) a copy of the plaint; and (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and (b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the ..... approved the granting of temporary injunction by the lower court without having any regard to the mandatory provisions of r. 3 of o. 39 of the code. in paragraph 6, the division bench had observed as under:--'before parting with this appeal, it must be stressed that the subordinate courts are granting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1992 (HC)

Sri Mahabirji Mandir Committee Vs. the State of U.P. and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-09-1992

Reported in : 1993CriLJ2132

..... under section 145, cr. p. c. cannot be initiated so as to oust a party from actual possession of the property in dispute. there are several provisions in the code of criminal procedure which authorise the magistrate and empower him to take action in order to prevent the breach of the peace in cases where the question of possessions was not in ..... valid society. he further pointed out that opposite party no. 2 also moved an application for interim injunction as well as for appointment of receiver before the civil judge, lucknow, but the same were rejected. the petitioner has also filed two letters of the assistant registrar of societies showing that the allegations made against the petitioner's society by opposite party no ..... against the petitioner in which he also admitted that petitioner's society is a registered one and is managing the affairs of the temple. according to the contents of the plaint the dispute was that the petitioner is misusing his possession and is misappropriating the funds of the said temple. it is also not disputed that krishna kant pathak is head ..... firms, societies and chits, uttar pradesh, lucknow. the said letters are contained in annexures 7 and 8. the petitioner also filed copy of the plaint in regular suit no. 12 of 1991 as annexure 9. in the plaint it is not disputed that the temple was being managed by the petitioner and in para 6 it is stated that ashok kumar pathak .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 1992 (HC)

K.L. Virmani Vs. Iiird Additional Dist. Judge, and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-13-1992

Reported in : AIR1992All326

..... filling by earth. the report was submitted before the court on 2-2-1983.3. the petitioner filed an application under o. 39, rule 2a of the code of civil procedure, c.p.c. in brief, for action against respondent no. 3. opposite party filed his objection in the said case on 26-4-1983.4. in ..... of amended code are admittedly applicable to the present case. the view of 1962 alj 201 (supra) based on the-un-amended c.p. ..... powers. the case relied on by the learned civil judge reported in 1962 alj 201 relied on the provisions of order 39, rule 2a of the c.p.c. as it stood prior to the u.p. amendment of 1970 and the amendments in the code of civil procedure by the central act in 1976. the provisions ..... in the eastern boundry-wall. the petitioner is a teannt in the premises in question i.e. the dominant tenament since 1955. the allegation in the plaint was that the dominant tenament was enjoying the easementary right of flowing all rain and flood water through the three outlets in the boundary-wall towards the ..... and was not present at dehradun to get the construction or openings closed by filling earth.5. it is important to note that in the meantime the civil suit for injunction filed by the petitioner has been decreed for permanentinjunction restraining the defendants from closing the openings used for outletting of rain and flood waters .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1992 (HC)

Shri Masood and Others Vs. Shri Mohd. Yunus Khan and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-21-1992

Reported in : AIR1993All159

..... orderg.d. dube, j. 1. this revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of civil judge, aligarh, rejecting the application of the revisionists under o.1, r. 10 of the code of civil procedure for being impleaded in suit no. 661 of 1990 : mohd. yunus khan and another v, smt. shahnaz hussain and ..... impleadment is quite necessary in the suit.11. for the reasons mentioned above, we are of opinion that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application of the revisionists for impleadment. even if the revisionists were not a necessary party yet they being presently affected by the judgment passed ..... subject-matter in dispute was a public temple. it was a writ petition arising against an order in a revision by the xth additional district judge rejecting the revision against an order of the trial court, allowing an application under order 1, rule 10, c.p.c., allowing implead-ment of ..... for impleadment is allowed. these respondents be now added as defendants. we add revisionists as defendants 6 to 9. the plaintiff shall amend the plaint in trial court amending and adding revisionist-defendants 6 to 9. it shall also permit the plaintiffs to make such consequential amendments as are required ..... proper party. it was also held that the suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction and nobody can be impleaded in the suit. the learned civil judge also came to the conclusion that the revisionists were neither necessary nor proper party. it was also held that the suit was for permanent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1992 (HC)

Collector, Varanasi Vs. Rai Prem Chand and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-14-1992

Reported in : AIR1992All206

..... an appeal against an award shall lie only to the high court. the relevant portion of s. 54 reads as under:'subject to the provisions of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (v of 1908), applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in anyenactment for the time being in force, an appeal ..... court, but do not prescribe any period of limitation for the appeal. it has always been assumed, probably rightly, that such appeals areappeals under the code of civil procedure, governed by what is now article 156 of schedule i to the limitation act and by the general provisions of the act also. subsection (4) of ..... the object of section 47 of the act was to attract the provisions of the code of civil procedure, there are several acts, for example, the succession act, the probate and administration act, and the land acquisition act, which make the code of civil procedure applicable to proceedings under the act and give a right of appeal to the high ..... thus created. the reference proceeding, though not termed as a suit within the meaning of cpc, has been made amenable to the code by sec. 53. although proceedings under s. 18 of the act are not initiated by filing a plaint as in the case of a suit but it takes root only when the reference ..... delay. in this casethis mandatory provision has not been complied with even uptil now. the court, therefore, has no other option but to reject the memo of appeal is being barred by time.23. memo of appeal is accordingly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1992 (HC)

Bishambhar and Another Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, Azamgarh a ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-08-1992

Reported in : AIR1992All178; [1992(65)FLR888]

..... . in this view of the matter it is held that the amendment application for the amendment of the plaint moved in the present case is not maintainable and is rejected as such.6. coming to the main controversy involved in the present case as to whether the courts below were ..... and its affirmance by the lower appellate court, it cannot be said that there is any suit pending in the civil court and that, therefore, no application for amendment of the plaint is maintainable. the other objection that writ petition is not a continuation of the original suit proceeding appears to be correct ..... 1966 sc 1445, that the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india of the high court is in exercise of its extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. when a writ petition is filed challenging a decision in a suit for proceeding declaring or adjudicating rights or interest in any land the high ..... parties although the trial court framed a number of issues but the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court was tried as a preliminary issue. after scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties before the trial court, the trial court found that ..... . the relief of possession was also asked for in the alternative. the said suit was contested by the defendants-respondents on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, which according to the defendants was cognizable only by the revenue courts. on the pleas of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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