Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: allahabad Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 52 results (0.028 seconds)

Aug 10 2004 (HC)

Satish Kumar Vs. Additional District Judge and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-10-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)AWC666; (2004)3UPLBEC2806

..... the election of the petitioner was liable to be declared void. the petitioner initially filed an application purporting to be under order vii, rule 11 (a) of the code of civil procedure for rejecting the plaint as it did not disclose any cause of action. the said application was dismissed by the election tribunal vide order dated 15th may, 2002. the writ petition filed by ..... jurisdiction under order vii, rule 11 can be exercised. the apex court has held that order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure does not justify rejection of any particular portion of the plaint and order vi, rule 16 of the code is relevant in this regard. it deals with striking out pleadings. it has three clauses permitting the court at any stage of ..... or not are to be looked into for determining whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint or not. this is relevant for the purpose of considering as to whether the plaint should be rejected outright under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure or not. this exercise has already been done by the election tribunal earlier when it had ..... rejected the application filed by the petitioner under order vii, rule ii of the code of civil procedure, which order has also been upheld by this court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2004 (TRI)

industrial Development Bank of Vs. Malwa Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-15-2004

Reported in : III(2006)BC54

..... period of notice under section 80 of the cpc the plaint was taken back by the appellant-bank and then again flied on the same ..... 1998 of the order sheet of the suit before the civil court, it is clear that the suit was filed on 5th december, 1997 with a prayer to waive the right of notice under section 80 of the cpc but when the same has been rejected and the plaint was ordered to be returned, then after spending the ..... december, 1997 pending and then included respondent-defendant no. 2 after expiry of the period of notice under section 80 of the cpc, but the same was not done, rather the plaint got returned and then filed afresh on 11th february, 1998 and hence the suit should be construed as filed on 11th february, ..... that necessity arose to file the suit premature because of urgency without compliance of section 80 (1) of the cpc the plaint was ordered to be returned as no urgency was found and as such the plaint was taken back from the side of the appellant-bank and it was re-filed on 11th february, 1998 ..... -operative society act vide notice dated 10th october, 1997 and also the notice was sent under section 80 of the cpc on that date. after expiry of the period of notice, the re-submitted plaint was registered before the district judge, indore and when the debts recovery tribunal was set up at jabalpur, the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2004 (HC)

Rafique UddIn and ors. Vs. A.D.J. (Court No. 1) and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-17-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ARC149; 2005(1)AWC322

..... plaint. the learned counsel further contended that the application for additional evidence was rightly rejected as there was justifiable ground to make out a case warranting admissibility of additional evidence at appellate stage.5. in connection with the question involved here in this petition, i feel called to acquaint myself with the relevant provisions of the code of civil procedure. section 107(d) of the civil procedure code ..... paragraph 15b has the complexion of introducing a new case, which is not permissible at appellate stage. therefore, it leaves no manner of doubt that the appellate court has rightly rejected the application in so far as pleadings as contained in paragraph 15b are concerned. the learned counsel for the petitioners also cited decision in b.k. narayan pillai v. parameshwaran ..... of appeal, the petitioners preferred application nos. 269c under order xli, rule 27, c.p.c. and 296c for amendment in the written statement. the aforestated applications came to be rejected by means of impugned order dated 10.10.2003 and it is in the above backdrop that the present petition has been instituted for the relief of writ of certiorari ..... .1. petition in hand has its genesis in the impugned order dated 10.10.2003, passed in civil appeal no. 276 whereby application no. 269c under order xli, rule 27, c.p.c. and application no. 296c for amendment in the written statement have been rejected by the lower appellate court.2. it would appear from the record that suit no. 912 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2004 (HC)

Ashok Vidyarthi Vs. Srilekha Vidyarthi and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-26-2004

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1278

..... filed on the ground that the decretal two rooms are not identifiable. the executing court vide its order dated 27th may, 1988 rejected the objection filed under section 47 of the code of civil procedure by the present writ petitioner. aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision no. 150 of 1988. during the pendency of revision no. 150 of 1988, on 9th january, 1989, the ..... has travelled beyond the decree. the judgment debtor therefore filed an objection under section 47 of the code of civil procedure on 31st may, 2004 against the execution order dated 29th may, 2004 which were dismissed by executing court. thereafter the petitioners filed revision against the order rejecting the objection filed by petitioners. the revisional court vide its order dated 24th july, 2004 dismissed ..... revision this writ petition. coming to the merits of the order under challenge, it is submitted by the petitioner that in view of the amendment in section 115 of the code of civil procedure state of u. p. by amending act of 2002, since the petitioner has already filed a revision against the order of the executing court, he challenges the order passed ..... of the defendants is unlawful and the plaintiff has been dispossessed, otherwise than in due course of law of the two rooms aforesaid described detail at the foot of the plaint without her consent and is entitled to recover possession under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963. the aforesaid suit no. 37 of 1969 was filed by the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2004 (HC)

Prakash Chandra Mishra and anr. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Gupta and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-06-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1673

..... of the suit.2. the trial court was of the opinion that the application for withdrawal of the suit was under order xxiii, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure. no specific order for withdrawal of the suit was required. therefore, for all practical purposes the suit stands withdrawn. in that view of the matter the ..... described by letters and shown by red colour in the plaint map. it appears that the plaintiffs respondents filed an application for temporary injunction, which was granted by the trial court. on 12.12.1997 the plaintiffs ..... made thereon by the court or its acting upon the same and attracting the consequence of sub-rule (4) of rule 1, order xxiii of the code.'7. in view of the above ruling it is clear that the present one is the case of abandonment of the suit and it was complete as ..... j.1. this is defendant's appeal. it arises out of a suit no. 1301 of 1997 filed by the plaintiff respondents in the court of civil judge (junior division) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants directing them not to interfere in the plaintiffs' exclusive right of use and passage over the land ..... division bench judgment of this court. by order dated 18.9.1998 application no. 14-ka was rejected and the suit was treated to have been dismissed. this order has been set aside by the court below in civil appeal no. 262 of 1998 by its judgment and order dated 5.5.2003. the matter has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2004 (HC)

Jagat NaraIn Jaiswal and anr. Vs. Tota Ram and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-11-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)AWC774

..... delay, in filing the appeal for setting aside the ex parte decree, the present appeal is not maintainable under order xliii rule 1 (d) of the civil procedure code. the appellants came out with the case that they came to know through sri vinay dixit, legal representative of smt. putta devi that summons was published in ..... no. 175 of 1968. he has sought setting aside of the ex parte decree principally on the ground that no summons under order v of the civil procedure code was issued either to him or to m/s. soorajbali ram and sons, or even soorajbali and co. the defendant against whom an ex parte decree ..... in filing the application under order ix rule 13, c.p.c. the said order is not appealable under order xliii rule 1 (d) of the civil procedure code.13. first i will take the case as set up by jagat narain jaiswal, appellant no. 1 for setting aside the ex parte decree, passed in suit ..... have no right to maintain these applications as they were the sub-tenants. the objections of the chief tenants under section 47, c.p.c. having been rejected, these objections have been filed in collusion with the chief tenants.9. the court below by its judgment and order dated 2nd september, 2000, has come ..... duly served with the summons of the suit and as such the application has been rightly rejected by the court below.23. an attempt has been made by appellant no. 1 to take advantage from the fact that in the plaint the defendant no. 9 was described as m/s. soorajbali and company, while according to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 2004 (HC)

Banarsi and ors. Vs. Incharge District Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-09-2004

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1628

..... less amount, ought to have been made.(2) no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section.'9. the relevant provisions of the code of civil procedure are produced as under :order 39 (3) : before granting injunction, court to direct notice to opposite party :'the court shall in all cases, except where ..... to be for such injunction is filed, there are three alternative orders that may possibly be made by the court on that application, firstly. it may be rejected forthwith secondly, its final disposal may be postponed, until after the opposite party has been heard, no ad interim injunction, 'being granted and lastly, an order ..... a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit;(na) an order under rule 5 or rule 7 of order xxxii rejecting an application for permission to sue as an indigent person ;)(o) (***);(p) in interpleader-suit under rule 3, rule 4 or rule 6 of order xxxv ..... of an endorsement ;(j) an order under rule 72 or rule 92 of order xxi setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale ;(ja) an order rejecting an application made under sub-rule (1) of rule 106 of order xxi, provided that an order on the original application, that is to say, the ..... ;(a) an order under rule 10 of order vii returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court (except where the procedure specified in rule 10a of order vii has been followed) ;(b) (* * *) ;(c) an order under rule 9 of order ix rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2004 (HC)

Rai Bareilly Flour Mills Vs. Trade Tax Tribunal

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-14-2004

Reported in : [2004]137STC105(All)

..... filed well within the period of time.18. in such circumstances, the principle of return of the plaint as enshrined in the civil procedure code, 1908 and the limitation act with regard to the return of the plaint and appeal can be invoked. though strictly speaking these statutes are not applicable as the u.p ..... before the assessing authority. the said application remained pending without any adjudication. the assessing authority after the expiry of the period of one year rejected the same very conveniently applying the theory of merger. if the application was not entertainable by it, it was expected from such person or ..... was proposed to exercise such power. in that case a revision filed by the aggrieved person against the order of the state government was rejected and the order passed by the central government subsequently was sought to be justified on the ground that even though the central government may not ..... the writ petition. the assessing authority, the respondent no. 2, by two identical orders both dated july 15, 2002 (annexures 7 and 8) rejected the two applications filed under section 30(3) of the act on the ground that the original assessment orders in respect of the relevant assessment years ..... has been applied to the proceedings under section 48 of the u.p. consolidation of holdings act when the deputy director of consolidation rejects an application in revision at initial stage on the ground that either it was barred by time or suffers from such other defect which rendered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2004 (HC)

Ram Saran Vs. Smt. Khazani

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-02-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ARC397; 2005(1)AWC850

..... was filed by the plaintiff/ respondent, which has been decreed by both the courts below applying the provisions' of order viii, rule 10, civil procedure code. the plaint was presented on 20.5.2002 but it is not in dispute that the full court fee was not then paid. the suit was registered ..... date of payment of court fee and registration of the suit and issuance of summons was as we have seen after the provisions of the amended civil procedure code had come into force. the amended provisions were therefore applicable for issuance of summons.6. a division bench of the karnataka high court in a ..... in topline shoes ltd. corporation bank, 2002 (3) awc 2433 (sc) : air 2002 sc 248.5. the consequence of applying section 149, civil procedure code is that the suit would be deemed to have been presented on 20.5.2002. however, it is clear from the fact that before the suit ..... have heard sri dhan prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and sri pankaj mittal, learned counsel for the respondent.3. under the provisions of the civil procedure code before the amendment the court had discretion to extend the time for filing the written statement without limit. the proviso to the amended order viii, ..... the defendant moved an application for taking the written statement on the record, which application was rejected by the trial court on 11.9.2003. the suit was then decreed under order viii, rule 10, civil procedure code on 19.9.2003. the appeal against the decree filed by the appellant was dismissed.2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2004 (HC)

Sunder Lal Verma Vs. Ranvir Rana

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-12-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ARC174

..... in view of the provision of order viii rule 1 c.p.c. as amended by the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002. section 9(1) of that amendment act has amended order vii rule 1 cpc with effect from 1.7.2002.4. for ready reference the said amended provision is reproduced below ..... karnataka 426 has also taken similar view.15. in these circumstances, i am of the view that application seeking condonation of delay deserves to be rejected and written staement deserves to be struck off the record having been filed beyond the maximum prescribed period order accordingly.16. list on 26.3.2004 ..... 11. i find myself unable to agree with this kind of submission, as it would defeat the entiere purpose of amendment carried out in the cpc. the amendment is intended to prevent misuse by unscrupulous defendant of repeatedly taking adjournment, seeking time and adopting dilatory tactics to the determinent of the ..... moved an application dated 31.3.2003 being misc. application no. 60603 of 2003 (paper no a-10) purporting to be under section 151 cpc praying that the delay in filing written statement be condoned and the written statement be accepted.'two questions arise in respect of the preliminary arguments made today ..... sri jain in order viii rule 10, to my mind, have been placed in the states to cover a case where even on the admitted plaint allegation, the judgmnt cannot be pronounced against a particular defendant because of some legal bar or lack of essential pleading giving a complete cause of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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