Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 1998 Page 1 of about 35 results (0.027 seconds)

May 26 1998 (HC)

Smt. Shyama Devi Vs. Viith Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ot ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-26-1998

Reported in : 1998(4)AWC485

..... -fee. the fact that the parties and the suit property involved are same and that the suit was rejected on the ground of non-payment of court-fee is not disputed. order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure empowers the court to reject the plaint on the grounds mentioned therein--one of which is failure on the part of the plaintiff to make ..... good the deficit court-fees if the plaint is written on paper insufficiently stamped within the time fixed by the court.12. admittedly ..... the plaint was rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code. an order rejecting the plaint is a decree ..... as defined in section 2(2) which while defining the decree deemed to include the rejection of plaint. therefore, the said rejection of the plaint being a decree, the issue which ought to have been raised shall .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1998 (HC)

Umesh Chandra Saxena and ors. Etc. Vs. Administrator General and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-24-1998

Reported in : AIR1999All109

..... or at least, against respondents nos. 8 to 12 and for pronouncement of judgment at once. 44. order 7, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure deals with rejection of plaint and it reads as under: '11. rejection of plaint.-- the plaint shall be rejected to the following cases: (a) where it docs not disclose a cause of action ; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the ..... as written statement, and, as such the testamentary suit was a suit for all purposes under the code of civil procedure and no exception could be taken to invocation of order 7 rule 11, c.p.c. we find no ..... all rigours of the code of civil procedure would be applicable. the hon'ble judge further relied on rule 39 of chapter xxx of the allahabad high court rules to say that when the matter become contentious the application for letters of administration would be treated and registered as a suit and the petition was to be read as a plaint and the objection ..... the plaint itself and not from a reading of the defence or other documents. 46. it appears that a second preliminary objection was also raised before the hon'ble single judge, concerning the application under order 7, rule 11, c.p.c. it was contended before him that in a proceeding for letters of administration all the provisions of the code of civil procedure .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1998 (HC)

Purnmasi Yadav Vs. Narbedeshwar Tripathi and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-27-1998

Reported in : 1998(2)AWC831

..... learned counsel for the respondents that only the judgment was filed and not the decree and so the civil appeal before the lower appellate court was not competent under section 96. the definition of 'decree', as given in the code of civil procedure, indicates that rejection of a plaint is covered within the term 'decree' and as such, in my view, there should not have been ..... any further formal recording of the decree to enable the appellant to make an appeal. moreover, this point should have been raised before the first appellate court.7. coming to the plaint, it is found ..... order dated 1.9.1993 the injunction prayer was disallowed and the plaintiff had a right to file a miscellaneous appeal under order xliii, rule 1 (r) of the code of civil procedure and against such an appeal, no second appeal would lie. it was further stated that the plaintiff had deliberately paid a deficient court-fee before the lower appellate court. this ..... directed against the first appellate judgment and decree dated 23.9.1993 recorded by the district judge. gorakhpur in civil appeal no. 49 of 1993, which was preferred by the present appellant. the aforesaid civil appeal was dismissed and the decree of rejection of the plaint by the court below was upheld.3. it appears that the present appellant filed suit no. 318 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 1998 (HC)

Niwas Khandsari Udyog, Village Hilalpur, Chandpur, Bijnor and Another ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-14-1998

Reported in : 1998(3)AWC2030

..... the deficiency of court fee good, but he has not paid the remaining court fee within time. the plaint is therefore, rejected in view of order vii. rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.'thus there is no scope of any confusion or doubt that the plaint was rejected under order vii, rule 11 when none was present- the suit was not dismissed for default, within ..... , the plaint has been rejected under the third contingency namely clause (c) of rule 11 of order vii ..... , rules 2 and 3 is attracted.10. rejection of plaint under order vii, rule 11 of the code is a decree as defined in section 2(2) of the code of civil procedure. while defining the decree under section 2(2), the definition included 'rejection of plaint'. the provision for rejection of plaint is provided under order vii, rule ii of the code in four contingencies. here in the present case ..... was being adjourned from time to time even sometimes on account of strike by the lawyers. ultimately the plaint was rejected by an order dated 20.1.1994 on account of non-payment of deficit court fees under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. it may be noted that the said order was passed in absence of the parties. the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1998 (HC)

Mukesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. Anant Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Allahabad ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-16-1998

Reported in : 1999(1)AWC636

..... the meaning of section 115a of the code, the order under challenge herein is reviseablc under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. a perusal of the plaint (annexure-2 to the petition) would ..... relating to execution of decrees and orders of civil court as embodied in the code of civil procedure as well as the remedial provisions of appeal or revision contained therein. since i have taken the view that determination of any question within the meaning of section 47 of the code and for that purpose, an order rejecting an execution application is not appealable under the ..... xxxix, rule 2a of the code of civil procedure. part ii of the code provides for execution of decrees and which by virtue of section 36 of the code, the provisions relating to execution shall, so far as they are applicable, be deemed to apply to the execution of 'orders'. the executing court in the instant case has rejected the application for execution on the ..... code and that such order is a 'case decided' within .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1998 (HC)

Rahmullah and Others Vs. District Judge and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-26-1998

Reported in : 1998(4)AWC253

..... described at the foot of the plaint in respect of the suit property described therein. in connection with the said suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under order xxxix, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure for temporary and ad interim injunction. by an order dated 21.3.1998, learnedcivil judge, (s.d.). siddharth nagar had rejected the application for temporary injunction. misc ..... . civil appeal no. 18 of 1998 was preferred by the plaintiff. by an order dated 2.5 ..... the relief falls outside the purview of section 34 of the act in that case the courts have power to grant such a decree under the general provisions of the code of civil procedure in continuity of the requirement of the section. since relief of delivery of possession could not have been granted without a complete cause of action being set out in ..... the plaint, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the court ought to have awarded the relief by granting a decree for possession, though it had not been asked .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1998 (HC)

Vishwanath Chopra Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Oth ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-27-1998

Reported in : 1998(2)AWC1540

..... regard to all or any of the matter in controversy in the suit and may either preliminary or final it shall be deemed to include the rejection of the plaint and determination of any question within section 144 but shall not include (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies or appeal from an order ..... application was filed by the respondents on 22nd december, 1989 for the first time to strike off the defence under order xv, rule 5 of the civil procedure code. the application was contested by the petitioner that this application is not maintainable before the revisional authority. an application was also filed by the petitioner offering ..... in accordance with law.13. i accordingly, allow the writ petition, set aside the judgment passed by the revisional court dated 1st december, 1997 in civil revision no. 431 of 1984 and remand the case to the revisional court to decide it afresh in accordance with law.14. there will be no orders ..... the court from whose the decree and appeal is preferred with a direction to re-admit the suit on it s original number in the register of civil suit and proceed to determine the suit : and evidence if any, recorded during the original suit shall be subject to all just exceptions put evidence, ..... j.1. the petitioner by means of present writ petition has challenged the order dated 1st december, 1997, passed by the respondent no. 1 in civil rev. no. 431 of 1994 which has been filed as annexure-8 to the writ petition.2. the brief facts giving rise to the present .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1998 (HC)

Hafiz ChiraguddIn and Others Vs. Vth Upper Munsif, Agra and Another

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-04-1998

Reported in : 1998(3)AWC2179

..... passed in revision against the order dated 21.11.1983.4. the suit was instituted by the petitioners in representative capacity under order i, rule 8 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the 'code'), against the respondent no. 2 for permanent injunction restraining him from demolishing any grave or raising any construction in the property in dispute. the property in dispute ..... requires the petitioners to take steps to serve the sunni central waqf board, lucknow within the extended period andimposes the condition that on their failure their amendment application would stand rejected. the amendment application has not been disposed of on merits. the petition is. therefore, misconceived and liable to be dismissed.14. in the result, the petition fails and is hereby ..... cost. apart from imposing the cost, the court also directed that in case the petitioners failed to take steps within the time allowed by it, their amendment application would stand rejected.11. against the above order dated 11.1.1990, the instant petition has been instituted in this court. the court entertained the petition and stayed the operation of the impugned ..... as required by the order dated 21.11.1983.10. on 11.1.1990 came up the application of the petitioners under order vi, rule 17 of the code seeking certain amendments in the plaint. the court noticed that despite the order dated 21.11.1983, affirmed in revision, and despite being granted time repeatedly, the petitioners did not take steps to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 1998 (HC)

Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Others Vs. Additional District Judge, Maharaj ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-12-1998

Reported in : 1999(1)AWC149

..... for restraining the defendant from making construction in the disputed property. by an order dated 6.3.1998 the learned trial court has rejected the application for injunction. an appeal being civil misc. appeal no. 5 of 1998, was preferred by the petitioners. by an order dated 24.3.1998, the learned additional ..... out. it is necessary to find out the shape of the land for the purpose of prima jade case which is not available either from the plaint or from the affidavits in support of the injunction filed by the plaintiffs. particulars of the description of the property in respect whereof the injunction is ..... basis of material placed before it. for the purpose of arriving at a finding of prima facie case he considered, the case made out in the plaint and the application for injunction along with counter-affidavit that was filed by thedefendants as well as the relevant documents. the trial court had found that ..... district judge. maharajganj had dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of the learned civil judge. against these two orders, the revision petition under article 227 of the constitution has been filed by the petitioners.2. mr. swaraj prakash. learned ..... k. seth, j.1. the petitioners had instituted a suit being original suit no. 271 of 1997, in the court of civil judge, junior division against defendant opposite party no. 3 for injunction. in the said suit an application for temporary injunction was filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1998 (HC)

Devendra Kumar Mishra and Another Vs. District Judge and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-06-1998

Reported in : 1998(2)AWC1413

..... court-11. kanpur nagar. by order dated 24.8.1996, the learned judge. small cause court rejected application no. 153c filed by the petitioner--devendra kumar under order xxx, rule 8 of the code of civil procedure at the final hearing stage after two witnesses of the plaintiff respondent had already been examined holding, ..... served on them, put in appearance under protest so as to entitle them to avail of the provisions of rule 8 of order xxx of the code of civil procedure. concededly, the application was filed after testimonies of two witnesses of the plaintiff had been recorded in the case. impugned orders, in my opinion ..... against the said order came to be dismissed aide order dated 17.2.1997 holding that the application under order xxx, rule 8 of the code of civil procedure was not maintainable since it was not moved before the date of final hearing and also that there was no jurisdictional error in the impugned ..... petitioners urged that the courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions contained in order xxx. rule 8. c.p.c. and erred in rejecting the application moved on behalf of tine petitioner--devendra kumar mishra. the respondent's counsel refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the ..... district kanpur nagar and for recovery of rs. 5,260 as arrears of rent from 1.3.1985 to 2.2.1988. according to the plaint allegation, the shop in question was let out on a monthly rent of rs. 150 to kumar medical stores through shailendra kumar mishra. it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

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