Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 2000 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.032 seconds)

Apr 19 2000 (HC)

Rajendra Prakash Vs. Smt. Babita Gupta Alias Pratiba Gupta and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-19-2000

Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2253

..... execution and registration of the saledeed or that there was a promise to pay or that there was any payment. therefore, at this stage the plaint cannot be rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.14. mr. prakash krishna had relied on a passage from mulla on the transfer of property act, 1882 at page 303 of the sixth edition ..... was an assurance by the husband of the plaintiff that such amount would be adjusted.5. the defendant had also made an application under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. this application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24th august, 1998. the learned ..... , which will be referred to at appropriate stage, mr. prakash krishna submits that it is abundantly clear that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and as such, it is to be rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. he had relied on some decisions in support of his contention in this respect as well. those decisions would ..... not otherwise. therefore. it is not a question which can be decided at this stage and the plaint should be rejected on the ground of absence of cause of action. he lastly contended that in view of the proviso to section 115 of the code of civil procedure, the order having not conclusively determined the right between the parties and having not resulted into any .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 2000 (HC)

Kanhaiya Lal (Decd.) Through Lrs Vs. Sri Raj NaraIn SarIn (Decd.) Thro ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-15-2000

Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2206

..... learned trial court to decide this question in exercise of its jurisdiction under order x. of the code of civil procedure.18. the appeal therefore, succeeds. the order dated 23rd october. 1992, passed by the learned civil judge. agra in o.s. no. 499, of 1990, rejecting the plaint being a decree is hereby set aside.19. the learned court below is directed to decide the ..... question under order x of the code of civil procedure if the defendants make a prayer to that extent in accordance with law ..... on the determination by the court on the basis of the materials that might come before it either at the stage under order x. of the code of civil procedure or at a subsequent stage as the case may be.9. the plaint could not be thrown out at this stage on the basis of the pleadings that has been made out in the ..... question of finding of fact or a question of belief or disbelief of the statement made in the plaint, which cannot be gone into unless at the stage of trial or even at the time of examination under order x of the code of civil procedure had also dealt with certain factors with regard to execution of usufructuary mortgage in favour of third person .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2000 (HC)

Parmeshwar Khanna and Others Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-01-2000

Reported in : 2000(1)AWC699

..... , 1999, the learned additional district judge, xvith court. meerut, being the judge, small causes court, had rejected the defendant's application under order vii. rule 10 of the code of civil procedure for return of the plaint in s.c.c. suit no. 13 of 1995. the defendant had filed an application for review, which ..... was also rejected by an order dated 17th november, 1999 passed in s.c.c. suit no. ..... even after the defendant appears, whenever the court is of opinion that it had no jurisdiction and the plaint should have been presented before a competent court of jurisdiction, it may adopt the procedure under rule 10a when the plaintiff agrees. if the plaintiff does not agree, then the court has ..... chand satish chand. : air1981all112 . this court had held that lack of jurisdiction when found after evidence is led. the proper order is to return the plaint and not to dismiss. same view was taken in kalka prasad v. jangi singh : air1931all664 and arjun rautara v. maharaja krishna chandra gajpati narayan deo, ..... is satisfied that ithas no jurisdiction, as was held in athmanathaswami devasthanam v. k gopalaswami ayyangar, air 1965 sc 338, it has to return the plaint. it can be done after hearing the preliminary issue as laid down in lala dhanpat rai v. sri prem sunder bhargava : air1962all572 .5. at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2000 (HC)

Sureya Prakash Vs. Raghuvir Saran Agarwal and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-18-2000

Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1108

..... that there was no necessity for asking better particulars on the basis of the statement made in the plaint. on this ground, he had rejected the application of defendant and had directed filing of written statement.6. order 6. rule 5 of the code of civil procedure provides that a further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and ..... by the plaintiff by means of an application. by an order dated 19.5.1999 passed by the learned civil judge. senior division, barellly in original suit no. 151 of 1998 rejected the said application of the defendant-revisionist. against the said order civil revision no. 92 of 1999 was preferred before the learned district judge. bareilly. by an order dated 6.11 ..... or allowing the better particular under order vi, rule 5.5. having perused the order dated 19.5.1999 passed in original suit no. 151 of 1998 passed by learned civil judge, senior division, bareilly. it appears that the defendants had asked for better particulars under order vi. rule 5 of c.p.c. with regard to certain clarification. the learned ..... submits his written statement. in such circumstances having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions contained in order vi, rule 5 of the code, i do not rnd it a fit case for interference at this stage.7. the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. however, there will be no order as to cost .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2000 (HC)

Yogendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Vikash JaIn and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-22-2000

Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1339

..... to set aside the decree of 27.1.1990 treating it as an exparte decree. the trial court rejected the application on 31.3.1990 on the ground that it was not an ex parte ..... decree but passed on merits as order xvii. rule 3 of the code of civil procedure was applicable on the facts of the case. the defendants filed ..... sub-tenant with the consent of the landlord.18. the petitioner has also challenged the order whereby the application for setting aside the decree was rejected on the ground that it was decided on merits. as the petitioner had not filed any written statement in the suit nor adduced any evidence, ..... and they had entered into compromise with the plaintiff. they prayed that the revision be decided in terms of the compromise. respondent no. 1 rejected the application filed by the applicants to condone the delay in filing the revision by its order dated 15.9.1993. the petitioner has filed writ ..... plaint. none appeared for the defendants- the trial court came to the conclusion that the tenant-defendant nos. 1 and 2 had illegally sublet it to yogendra kumar jain, defendant no. 3. and accordingly decreed the suit on 6.1.1990. the defendants including the petitioner filed an application under order ix. rule 13 of code of civil procedure .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2000 (HC)

Pradeep NaraIn Sharma and Another Vs. Satya Prakash Pandey

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-03-2000

Reported in : 2000(1)AWC678

..... he further contends that the court had failed to comply with the provisions of rule 10, order viii of the code of civilprocedure in that the said provision of the code of civil procedure is applicable in a proceeding before the court of small causes by virtue of section 17 of the provincial small cause ..... , learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, strongly opposes the contention of mr. ganguly. he contends that the court was right in rejecting the application for adjournment since in the application itself, no sufficient ground was made out. according to him, even on the merit of the application for adjournment ..... circumstances of each case.14. now let us examine the question whether rule 10, order viii empowers the court to pass a judgment accepting the plaint case as gospel truth. even if the defendant does not file written statement, the plaintiff has to prove and establish his case. he cannot ..... fails to file the written statement, yet it does not empower the court to decree the suit without having regard to the statement made in the plaint supported by materials, which might include oral evidence. there is nothing to indicate, even though it was a decision by the small causes court, ..... . after having perused the impugned order, it seems that the learned trial court had proceeded on the basis that the statements made in the plaint are correct since it was supported by the plaintiff but the said order does not show that the plaintiff was examined and that in his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2000 (HC)

Prahlad Singh and Another Vs. Niyaz Ahmad and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-08-2000

Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1721

..... defend ant-applicant had no right to make application under order ix. rule 7, and, therefore, the said application was misconceived and had been rightly rejected by the court below. for making this submission that the application, at the stage at which it was moved, was not maintainable, the learned counsel has ..... next date fixed for hearing after 19.5.1994 was 15.7.1994.8. order ix, rule 7, c.p.c. reads as under :'procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance.--where the court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex ..... that the applications filed by the petitioners under order ix. rule 7, c.p.c. were legally maintainable, the courts below have acted illegally in rejecting the application on the ground that the order dated 10.5.1994 operates as res judicata, therefore, according to him, orders passed by the courts ..... jurisdiction in upholding the order passed by the trial court. thereafter as stated above, application for amendment of the plaint was filed which was allowed and amendment was also incorporated in the plaint. the petitioner had no right to intervene in the proceedings of the suit at that stage, inasmuch as the ..... final. it is stated that on 21.5.1997 an_ application moved by the plaintiff-respondent for amendment of the plaint. the said application was allowed and amendment was also incorporated in the plaint. it was on 16.7.1997 petitioners again moved a fresh application under order ix. rule 7 with a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2000 (HC)

Purshottam Das Tandon Vs. Military Estate Officer

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-07-2000

Reported in : AIR2000All127; (2000)1UPLBEC738

..... instant writ petition is to be dismissed ?(iii) whether this writ petition is not maintainable on account of applicability of the principles enshrined under order ii, rule 2 of the code civil procedure ?(iv) whether the observations made by this court vide its order dated 6-7-1970 while dismissing petitioner's earlier writ petition no. 175 of 1969 and whether the order ..... requires no further discussion. herethere is no explanation attached like explanation v with section 11 of the code of civil procedure. thus if a writ petition has been rejected only factually, and not fictionally as contemplated in the explanation v attached with section 11 of the code of civil procedure, then the second writ petition on the same 'cause of action', which means bundle of facts, would ..... defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.explanation-v-- any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.explanation-vi -- where persons litigate bona fide in respect ..... to this effect:--it being not clear as to what was the real dispute involved in the suit thus for making the whole matter clear, it is necessary to file plaint and the written statements filed therein as annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively, which may be taken on record; it is important to mention that there was no dispute of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2000 (HC)

Radha Kisan Vs. Viith Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Othe ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-08-2000

Reported in : 2000(1)AWC843

..... prove this fact. the court has to consider the explanation in totality of all the circumstances. the provision of order xv, rule 5 of the code of civil procedure has not been engrafted to penalise the defendant but it is in order to ensurethat the tenant deposits monthly rent and not unnecessarily prolong the hearing of ..... chandra srivastava and others, 1982 (1) arc 665, the division bench of this court, considering explanation (1) added to order xv, rule 5 of the code of civil procedure by u. p. act no. 57 of 1976, held that the date of first hearing would be the date or dates specifically mentioned in the summons, namely ..... her daughter-in-law and secondly the lawyers never advised him to deposit every month within time as provided under order xv, rule 5 of the code of civil procedure. the trial court struck off the defence holding that the petitioner failed to establish that he had paid the rent to the previous landlady for ..... first hearing, cannot be upheld. on 5.8.1991 the petitioner filed an application that he had not received the copy of the plaint. the application was, however, rejected on the ground that on the back of the summons there was a note made by the process server that a copy of the ..... plaint was also attached. the case was adjourned by the court permitting the petitioner to file written statement. the suit in the meantime .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2000 (HC)

Radha Saran Dubey and Another Vs. Ram Niwas and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-28-2000

Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2282

..... can only be amended to substantiate, elucidate, expand the pre-existing facts contained in the original pleading.7. under order vi. rule 17 of the code of civil procedure such amendments are permissible 'as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.' therefore. in order to ..... of cause of action. thus. by no stretch of imagination, the said anjan kumar dev goswami. could be added as a parry in the plaint.13. then again anjan kumar dev goswami has not been sought to be added as a party as sebait of thakur govind dev ji maharaj nor ..... impleaded as a party even if he is a sebait of thakur govind dev ji maharaj and the property belongs to the deity so long the plaint does not disclose any dispute with regard to ownership or title of thakur govlnd dev ji maharaj. or the plaintiffs. even then it would ..... counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand contends that there has been inordinate delay in preferring the amendment. inasmuch as paragraph 1 of the plaint was amended in 1993. whereas the application for amendment was madein 1998. he secondly contends that the plaintiffs are not allowing the suit to proceed and ..... which is annexure-ii to the said application has since been rejected. mr. rakesh bahadur, learned counsel for the revisionist contends that in view of the amendment that was allowed in the plaint as is apparent from paragraph 1 of the amended plaint, thakur govind dev ji maharaj has been described as the owner .....

Tag this Judgment!


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