Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 29 results (0.027 seconds)

Nov 19 2002 (HC)

Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-19-2002

Reported in : AIR2003All140

..... representative capacity by the respondent nos. 2 to 6, the petitioner filed an application on 13-9-2000 under the provisions of order 7, rule 11 of code of civil procedure praying that the plaint may be rejected as the same does not disclose any cause of action. it was also stated in the said application that the suit was not maintainable and is also ..... , the provisions of the societies registration act are not at all attracted, thus, the suit was specifically maintainable. he further submitted that against the order rejecting the application under order 7, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, a revision lies, therefore, the writ petition itself is n'ot maintainable. he relied upon the following decisions :(1999) 1 scc 209 : (air 1999 sc ..... the provisions of order 1, rule 9 of code of civil procedures have not been complied with.7. the first learned additional civil judge, senior division, allahabad, respondent no. 1 vide impugned order dated 27-11-2000 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under order 7, rule 11, c.p.c. by holding that the plaint discloses cause of action and the same is ..... barred by the provisions of societies registration act. the petitioner has also filed his objection under order 39, rule 4 of code of civil procedure for setting aside the ex parte .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2002 (HC)

Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-05-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC251

..... srivastava, advocate withdrew from the case. it be also mentioned that the impugned order was passed on the application under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. for rejecting the plaint as early as on 27.9.1993, against which the defendant revisionist filed writ petition nos. 38645 of 1993 and 38647 of 1993. the writ petitions were entertained by this ..... revisions were heard on merits.20. the question whether the suit could proceed, or the plaint should be rejected go to very root of the matter. the exercise of powers in wrongly rejecting the plaint under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. or refusing to reject the plaint under the said provisions is jurisdictional matter. the court below, therefore, committed an error of ..... jurisdiction in not rejecting the plaint under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. and the said order could ..... b.k. rathi, j. 1. the above civil revisions were allowed by the judgment and order dated 25.7.2002 by which plaint of original suit no. 44 of 1993 and of original suit no. 45 of 1993 were quashed.2. the plaintiff-opposite party has moved an application for recall ..... 7.2002, nor there is any illegality in the order which might have resulted in injustice. accordingly, both applications for recalling the order dated 25.7.2002 are rejected. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2002 (HC)

Brij Mohan Singh Vs. District Panchayat Raj Officer and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-10-2002

Reported in : (2003)1UPLBEC36

..... is set out herein below :'11. rejection of plaint.-the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;(b) where the relief ..... it is barred under the specific statute, in our view there is adequate remedy under the code of civil procedure itself and proper course for the petitioner shall be to make an application before the civil judge for rejection of the plaint under order vii, rule ll(d) of the code of civil procedure. the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded to the view taken by us in ..... the matter and has submitted the proper course in such circumstances is to make an application for rejection of the plaint under order vii, rule 1 l(d) of the code of civil procedure which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2002 (HC)

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and ors. Vs. Heinz India Ltd.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-18-2002

Reported in : 2002(2)AWC898; (2002)2UPLBEC1060

..... defendant in the suit have yet not filed written statement. they made request for rejection of the plaint under order vii, rule 11. c.p.c. read with section 151 of c.p.c. the said application has been rejected by the learned civil judge (senior division), aligarh, by the impugned order dated 24.1.2002. aggrieved ..... of the land in appropriate form.' (emphasis given)4. that in compliance of the order of the hon'ble supreme court objections were filed which were rejected and the mandi fee has been assessed. therefore, according to the direction of the hon'ble supreme court, the right to realise the tax is being ..... vii, rule 11, c.p.c. came for consideration before the apex court. it was observed 'that if on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in (he sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, 'the court should exercise its power under order vii. ..... the board to revise the orders; that, therefore, the recourse should have been taken to the provisions of the code and the remedy provided in the code itself; that, therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court provided under section 9 of c.p.c. is impliedly barred.8. the learned counsel has further argued that ..... shall be deemed to be a sale and mandi fee is payable on the same.7. it has also been argued that the adhiniyam is self-contained code. section 25 of the adhiniyam provides for the appeal to the board against the orders of the committee imposing tax under section 17 of the adhiniyam .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2002 (HC)

Ram Roop and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and o ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-03-2002

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC615

..... . it is well-settled in law that a new case based upon the facts, which were available to the plaintiff at the time of filing of original plaint but were not pleaded in the original plaint, cannot be permitted to be set up by way of amendment. a reference in this regard may be made to the decisions in basanti del v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 2002 (HC)

Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-25-2002

Reported in : 2002(4)AWC2686

..... : 'that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it manifestly appears to be vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the trial court, should exercise its power under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is ..... the revisionists that no details of the fraud as required under order vi, rule 4, c.p.c. have been pleaded in the plaints and, therefore, the plaints are liable to be rejected. in this connection, the learned counsel for the revisionists has referred the decision of bal gangadhar tilak and ors. v. sri niwas ..... have been finally decided. the present suits are not maintainable and they do not disclose any cause of action and accordingly, the plaints of both the suits are liable to be rejected under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. 21. in this connection, i may point out the observation of the apex ..... and the plots on the basis of which it has been submitted that matter has been decided finally and that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be rejected. 6. it has been submitted that u. p. urban area zamtndarl abolition and land reforms act came into ..... . accordingly, the suits were filed. in both the suits, the defendants-revisionists moved applications under order vii rule 11, c.p.c. for rejection of the plaints alleging that their title is admitted and the matter has been decided finally several times from the highest court of the land and it cannot be agitated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 2002 (HC)

Chandra Prakash Arora Etc. Vs. Parveen Kumar Etc.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-08-2002

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC670

..... of 2001 move an application for his impleadment as party in the suit under order 1. rule 10, cpc. it was application no. 79-a. that application was rejected by order dated 13-12-2000. against that order, satpal singh has preferred civil revision no. 92 of 2001.5. srt kewal krishna revisionist of revision no. 164 of 2001 also moved ..... also locked and the key of the shop is with the official receiver. the applicant who is defendant in the suit moved an application 195-c under section 151, cpc alleging that there is no order for appointment of receiver nor there was any or -der for the lock of the shop. he, therefore, prayed that the key ..... 1998 for dissolution of partnership and for accounting of the said business in the said shop and his right will be decided in that suit. the copy of the plaint of suit no. 203 of 1998 has been filed. however, it support the case of the revisionist that he is partner in the business. his application for impleadment ..... arora and the applicant satpal singh for busines in the disputed shop 2/521/2-3 situated at railway road, saharanpur. the plaintiff praveen kumar in the plaint has also alleged that he is partner in the business in the said shop as is apparent from the allegations made in the ..... plaint, annexure-8. he alleged that partnership was entered on 18-7-1995.11. from this evidence, it prima facie appears that satpal slngh is also partner in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2002 (HC)

Veena Agrawal Vs. Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-10-2002

Reported in : (2003)1UPLBEC402

..... declaring of elections dated 26.11.2000 as illegal and void. the election has been challenged on the ground of corrupt practice adopted by petitioner in the elections, irregularities in procedure of counting, and exercise of undue influence by senior political leaders, as well as illegality in counting and illegal exclusion of the polling agents of petitioner. various other allegations have ..... , petitioner prayed that she may be permitted to file her written statement, if required after the disposal of the aforesaid application (39-ga), and if the first two prayers are rejected, the alternative prayer be allowed. an objection was filed by election petitioner on 24.2.2001.2. on 6.2.2002, election petitioner respondent no. 2 filed an application (67 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2002 (HC)

Jagdish Vs. District Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-25-2002

Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1153

..... application under order ix rule 13 of the code of civil procedure was rejected. section 17 of the provincial small cause courts act, 1887 provides as follows :'17. application of the code of civil procedure.--(1) the procedure prescribed in the codeof civil procedure, 1908, shall save in so far as is otherwise provided by that code or by this act, be the procedure followed in a court of small causes in ..... . the courts below have categorically held that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the said provision.therefore, the application under order ix rule 13 of the code of civil procedure filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed. no illegality has been committed by the courts below in passing the impugned orders. no interference is called for in the exercise ..... of the plaint of the said suit has been filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition.4. it further appears that the said suit was decreed ex parte by the judgment and order dated 24.11.2001.5. it further appears that the petitioner filed an application dated 10.12.2001 under order ix rule 13 of the code of civil procedure for ..... petition is copy of the said judgment and order dated 28.9.2002.2. the dispute relates to a kothari situated in civil lines, station road badaun, pargana and district badaun, the details whereof have been given in the plaint of the suit referred to hereinafter. the said kothari has hereinafter been referred to as 'the disputed accommodation'.3. from the allegations .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2002 (HC)

Umesh Chand and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-11-2002

Reported in : 2002(2)AWC932

..... no substantial question of law has been framed in the second appeal whereas second appeals can be considered only on substantial questions of law as required by section 100 of code of civil procedure. the second appellate court also noted that the receipt in question which refers to transfer of possession is not registered and has referred to decisions of this court. the ..... dismissing the suit. the second appellate court has also held that appellants had not mentioned about any substantial question of law in the second appeal as required by section 100, code of civil procedure. the apex court in madhavan nair v. ramankutty and anr., 2000 (2) scc 356, has laid down that framing of substantial questions of law is mandatory after c.p ..... . under section 154 the petitioners became entitled to land in dispute and the right, title and interest vested in them. the deputy director of consolidation, therefore, committed an error in rejecting the claim of petitioners.2. in the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. the order passed by deputy director of consolidation is quashed. as no body has appeared on ..... life-time avoided to execute the sale-deed and subsequently died, hence, the suit was filed for declaration of bhumidhari rights. respondent no. 3 filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. other defendants appeared but they did not file written statement and the suit proceeded ex-parte against them. it was stated in the written statement that father of defendants .....

Tag this Judgment!


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