Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 32 results (0.026 seconds)

Mar 21 2003 (HC)

Ganpat Lal Gupta and ors. Vs. Vth Additional District Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-21-2003

Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2126

..... the respondents setting aside the order dated 8.1.1991, passed by the trial court allowing the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint under order vi, rule 17 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter called c.p.c.).2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed suit no. 46 of 1989 against ..... or prejudice to the other side. the amendment sought should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. application for amendment may be rejected if the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him injury which could not be ..... . prademanju agarwal : [1997]3scr508 .22. in estrella rubber v. dass estate pvt. ltd. : air2001sc3295 , the supreme court held that mere delay in making the amendment application is not enough to reject the application unless a new case is made out, or serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the other side so as to take away any accrued right ..... to quantification of the fee, some changes are sought to be introduced while retaining the total amount claimed in the original plaint, does not mean that the nature of relief claimed has undergone a material change. therefore, the grounds of rejection of amendments are legally unjustified and based on non-application of mind to the exact nature of amendments.'28. in sampath .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 2003 (HC)

Chief of the Army Staff and ors. Vs. Daya Shanker Tiwari

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-22-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)AWC2824

..... 1987 (2) awc 133 (sc) : air 1987 sc 1970, the hon'ble supreme court examined the scope of order i, rule 10 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 and explained the necessity of impleadment of a necessary party, observing that necessary party must be impleaded in the petition otherwise the judgment could not be ..... xxvii lays down as to who should sign the pleadings. no individual officer of the government under the scheme of the constitution nor under the code of civil procedure, can file a suit nor initiate any proceeding in the name and the post he is holding, who is not a juristic person.the court ..... without impleading the state if relief is sought against the state. the hon'ble apex court had drawn the analogy from section 79 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, which directs that the state shall be the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant in a suit by or against the government ..... union. therefore, from all points of view, the union of india was rightly held by the high court to be a necessary party. the petition was rightly rejected by the high court.'21. while considering the similar view in chief conservator of forests, government of a. p. v. collector and ors., (2003) 3 ..... suits by or against the government or by officers in their official capacity. it provides that in any suit by or against the government, the plaint or the written statement shall be signed by such person as the government may like by general or special order authorise in that behalf and shall .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2003 (HC)

Jagannath Vs. Lala Ram and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-06-2003

Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1669

..... havali, junior division, lucknow in regular suit no. 755 of 1999 : lala ram v. jagannath and anr., rejecting the application c-21 of the defendant-revisionist under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist.3. the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that ..... the defendant from interfering in the possession over the disputed agricultural land. defendant appeared and moved an application c-21 under order vii rule 11, code of civil procedure with the allegations that the plaintiff has sought declaration of a bhumidhari property and his name is not mutated in the revenue record and without this ..... lie in the revenue court, does not lay down a good law. suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the civil court and a party cannot be deprived of his right getting his relief permissible under law except when a declaration of right or status as a ..... that the relief sought in the suit cannot be granted by the revenue court. i find that three reliefs as stated in the plaint cannot be granted by the revenue court, therefore civil court has jurisdiction. the learned counsel for the revisionist has referred ram padarath and ors. v. 2nd additional district judge, sultanpur and ..... , by the revenue court. this decision is not applicable in the instant case in view of the relief sought in the plaint.5. in view of the above, the revision is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.6. the revision is dismissed. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2003 (HC)

Bal Kishan and ors. Vs. Vith Additional District Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-24-2003

Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2170

..... that a court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit the return of the plaint under this sub-rule. procedure on returning plaint : (2) on returning a plaint the judge shall endorse thereon the dates of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it and a ..... 50/88 hatia, kanpur nagar without partition and without clarifying the shares in the house in dispute. the application for temporary injunction filed along with the suit was rejected by the munsif city, kanpur nagar, against which misc. appeal was filed before the district judge, kanpur nagar. the appeal was allowed and the proceedings of ..... court-fee on the increased valuation has been paid. the only grievance of the petitioner is that the suit should have been registered again in the court of civil judge, kanpur nagar afresh after it was transferred, as according to him, if the court is allowed, it would create problem in execution of decree. ..... in law to return the suit to the plaintiff, instead by order dated 30.8.1991 sent the suit to the court of civil judge, kanpur nagar for registration and numbering of the year according to order iv rule 2, c.p.c., as original suit in the court of ..... civil judge, which was illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. admittedly, the suit was instituted before the munsif city, kanpur nagar, as valuation of the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2003 (HC)

Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Prabha Kirana Stores

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-05-2003

Reported in : AIR2004All82

..... of the subsequent developments, the appellant filed an application under order 6, rule 17 for the amendment of the plaint for adding paras 8 (a) to 8 (f) in his plaint. the trial court rejected his prayer and the revision petition filed against that order was dismissed by the high court vide order impugned in ..... various other authorities, this court in b. k. narayana pillai v. parameswaran pillai : air2001sc699 '3, the purpose and object of order 6, rule 17 cpc is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. the power to allow the amendment ..... property and demolished the wall on northern, eastern and western sides. the appellant filed the application for amendment of the plaint including incorporation of relief of recovery of damages. the trial court rejected the application and the revision filed against that order was dismissed by the high court. the apex court observed as ..... (paper no. 97/a2) dated 28-4-1979 is almost identical to the amendment application (paper no. 43/a2), which was already rejected and the order of rejection had become final. thereafter, vide order dated 30-5-1981, the suit was dismissed. the plaintiff-respondent filed the appeal against the judgment ..... , j.1. the present appeal is directed against the order dated 9-11-1981 passed by vith additional district judge, gorakhpur in civil appeal no. 171 of 1981 arising from the original suit no. 165 of 1976.2. the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for specific .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2003 (HC)

Smt. Dayawati and ors. Vs. Madan Lal Varma and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-24-2003

Reported in : AIR2003All276

..... deed was obtained by fraud and no consideration was paid, was not available to the plaintiffs appellants. accordingly, the arguments advanced on these points are rejected only on the ground that these pleas are not open to present appellants and the evidence on these points as well as findings of the courts below ..... adjournments. ultimately the suit was decreed by the trial court on the basis of the evidence of the appellants under order 17, rule 3 cpc. the respondents, therefore, moved application for restoration as well as preferred the first appeal no. 533 of 1986 against the decree. the restoration application of ..... returned on 22-2-1985 on the basis of finding that the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit. thereafter, the plaint was presented in the court of civil judge on 22-3-1985 impleading nava ratan lal as defendant no. 1. he died in the year 1997. but he had ..... the respondents was rejected. against that order, the respondents preferred first appeal no. 307 of 1987. 6. appeal no. 533 of 1986 has been allowed by the lower ..... was not impleaded as party in this, appeal. the appellants are widow, sons and daughters of nava ratan lal. it was further alleged in the plaint that the sale deed was obtained by fraud from nava ratan lal. it was obtained without consideration. that in fact there was only loan, transaction, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2003 (HC)

Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Prabhu NaraIn Singh and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-24-2003

Reported in : AIR2003All223; 2004(1)CTLJ400(All)

..... the defendants 3 and 4 this order will not come in the way of the trial court in deciding their rights. 13. the trial court has rejected the application on the ground that no interlocutory order could be passed on account of the pendency of the writ petition. although the trial court has not ..... the stand of the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit itself. in the circumstances the defendants aforesaid have made out a case under section 151, cpc for grant of temporary mandatory injunction against the plaintiff. however if the defendants 1 and 2 have claimed before the trial court the release of the goods ..... the defendants applicants are entitled to the custody of the goods. certain facts about the plaintiffs lien may here be noted. in para 2 of the plaint averment regarding transportation by 39 trucks from 1-5-2001 to 30-6-2001 from saharanpur to bombay and by 4 trucks from varanasi to bombay is ..... stage of evidence and could be disposed of expeditiously. 6. sri r.n. singh, learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the plaint case itself there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 3 and 4, that the containers admittedly belonged to the applicants and ..... of the plaintiff are cleared'. no relief in the suit is claimed against m/s. central warehousing corporation. 3. in paragraph no. 8 of the plaint it is stated that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 and 4 but they have been impleaded as parties as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2003 (HC)

Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. Civil Judge (Sd) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-31-2003

Reported in : AIR2003All321; 2003(3)AWC1718

..... 1586 of 1992 was filed by the petitioner in the trial court, wherein application for interim relief under order xxxix, rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter called c.p.c.) was also filed for restraining the defendant respondent no. 3 to alienate the property. after receiving the notice of the court ..... khan v. bindu khan : air1998sc2765 , the hon'ble supreme court held that in exercise of the power under order xxxix, rule 2a of the code, the civil court has a power either to order detention for disobedience of the disobeying party or attaching his property and if the circumstances and facts of the case ..... attach the properties of the respondent no. 3, including those sold to the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 as described at the foot of the plaint in suit no. 1586 of 1992 and for quashing the order dated 10.11.1995, passed by respondent no. 2 to the extent that it exempted ..... of an order of execution. similarly, in sitarami v. ganesh das : air1973all449 , the court held as under :'the purpose of order xxxix, rule 2a, civil p. c. is to enforce the order of injunction. it is a provision which permits the court to execute the injunction order. its provisions are similav to ..... rule 2a cannot be initiated and no punishment can be imposed for disobedience of the order because the civil court, which granted the injunction, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. the apex court rejected the contention holding that a party aggrieved of the order has a right to ask the court to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 2003 (HC)

Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Lalit Bhasin

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-26-2003

Reported in : [2003]45SCL31(All)

..... this is a revision against the order dated 30.11.2002 passed by civil judge (senior division), lucknow allowing the application 25a under order vi, rule 17 of the code of civil procedure. the copy of the application for amendment of the plaint of the suit filed by the opposite party is annexure-s-1 and ..... high court and the present suit is also not maintainable before the court at lucknow because of the provisions of section 10 of the code of civil procedure. this contention has also been left undecided before passing the impugned order.14. the learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on ..... view of the proviso of the code of civil procedure amendment act, 1999, but these legal propositions can be considered only when the trial court finds that the bundle of facts averred in the plaint constitute a cause of action which lies within the jurisdiction of the civil court. since the trial court has ..... not continue to arise to the plaintiff. in short, the main objection of the defendant-revisionist against the application for amendment of the plaint is that the civil court has no jurisdiction to enter into the cause of action to the plaintiff-opposite party.4. the learned trial court allowed the ..... would amount to usurping a jurisdiction not vested in it. therefore, the revision is to be allowed. since the cause of action in the plaint contain the complaint of the opposite party, a member of the revisionist-company that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2003 (HC)

In Re: the Goods of Late Ravinder Kumar

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-04-2003

Reported in : AIR2004All46

..... of probate and letters of administration shall, save as hereinafter otherwise provided, be regulated, so far as the circumstances of the case permit, by the code of civil procedure. 1908.'35. thus, the provisions of code of civil procedure, 1908, save as otherwise provided in the indian succession act, 1925 have been made applicable to the proceedings of the court of the district judge ..... conferred under the code of civil procedure including the power conferred under section 148 code of civil procedure regarding enlargement of time while dealing with the proceedings for granting of probate or letters of administration.39. the said conclusion is also supported by ..... with the district judge in the exercise of all the powers conferred upon the district judge. reading sections 268 and 300 together is evident that the provisions of code of civil procedure including section 148 thereof are applicable to the proceedings for grant of probate or letters of administration before the high court.38. hence, the high court has powers ..... civil procedure which has been relied upon in the aforementioned decisions cited by sri j. nagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.40. in palani gramanl case (supra), it was laid down as follows (at pages 487 and 488 of the said air) :'................when a case is registered as a suit and the petition becomes a plaint, no fee is prescribed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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