Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-18-2005
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3563; 2005(3)ESC2209
..... every complaint and affidavit under this rule as well as any schedule or annexure thereto shall be verified in the manner laid down in the code of civil procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings and affidavit respectively.(4) not less than three copies of the complaint as well as of each of ..... provisions of rule 3(5). the provision is analogous to order 7, rule 11 cpc, which provides that if the plaint is not filed in duplicate as required under order 4 rule 1 cpc, the plaint is to be rejected, ix. as the complaint itself was not in accordance with rules, in view of ..... could approached this court to challenge the order. the only possible answer is no.43. in view of the above, the application for impleadment stands rejected. however, since the issues raised in this writ petition have' wide repercussions and since the questions to be answered are of a serious nature, we ..... his title to someone. however, in dr. duryodhan sahu and ors. v. jitendra kumar mishra and ors., : (1998)iillj1013sc , the hon'ble supreme court rejected the claim of a stranger to maintain a writ petition even in public interest.23. in m.s. jayaraj v. commissioner of excise, kerala and ors., : ..... motivated person and is there beneficiary of the impugned order. he cannot be termed as a 'person aggrieved'. therefore, his application is liable to be rejected. shri s.m.a. kazmi, learned chief standing counsel has supported shri shashi nandan and submitted that the application for impleadment deserves to be allowed. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-08-2005
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2453
..... plaint, nor in the cause of action clause and as such, the suit was barred by time and was liable to be rejected for not disclosing cause of action. on this point i am in full agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the landlord-respondent. the expression 'cause of action' has not been defined in the code of civil procedure ..... of action arose for filing of suit on the ground of structural alteration does not find place in the plaint and as such, no decree could be passed and plaint was liable to be rejected as provided in order vii, rule 11 c.p.c. learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ..... of the matter, it is not possible to infer that there was no cause of action or the plaint did not disclose the cause of action for filing a suit and plaint was liable to be rejected on this score. moreover, the trial court as well as revisional court found that the construction was ..... took into consideration all facts and circumstances and the evidence led by the parties and then recorded the finding.13. in paragraph 4 of the plaint, the landlord alleged that the tenant raised pucca construction in the lawn of the building as well as in the back portion and thereby caused ..... consent and knowledge of the landlord. moreover, the building in question was not disfigured and the alteration did not diminish the value, as alleged in the plaint.7. the plaintiff examined his mukhtar aam, prakash nath dixit. on the other hand, the tenant examined himself and one t.p. singh. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-27-2005
Reported in : AIR2005All329; 2005(4)AWC3440
..... point, whereas, in the present case, the order dated 18-2-2005, is an order deciding an objection under order 21, rule 97, cpc, whereby the objection was rejected. after hearing counsel for the respective parties, the controversy that has to be decided in the instant case is, as to whether, the misc ..... 8-1995. in the meantime, an objection was filed under section 47, cpc by murari lal in execution case no. 21 of 1984, which was identical to the plaint allegation of suit no. 283 of 1994. the said objections were rejected by the court on 22-5-1998. a revision against said order was ..... raised on behalf of contesting respondents, regarding the maintainability of the present application. counsel for the respondents has argued that the appeal was allowed by the civil judge (senior division), on transfer from the district judge, and the case was remanded to the trial court (executing court) exercising the powers under order ..... resultant order is given the status of a decree and as against every decree, appeal is provided for, under the code. it is under such circumstances, the provision of rule 103, cpc has been incorporated by the amending act 104 of 1976 indicating the manner in which such appeals are to be dealt ..... an entry into the realm of section 96. therefore, an interpretation to the contrary would have the effect of setting at naught; the intention of the code. in view ; of a clear mandate under sub-rule (4) of rule 58, the character of a decree for all practical purposes, leaves the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-07-2005
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2182
..... . swaraj developers and ors. (supra) lays down that the revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory or interim order. the apex court while considering provisions of section 115 of the code of civil procedure, made following observation in paragraph 32: (at page 2442 of air).32. a plain reading of section 115, as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on ..... of the order dated 21.8.2004 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. feeling aggrieved by the said order of the first additional civil judge (senior division), petitioner preferred civil revision no. 239 of 2004 under section 115 of the civil procedure code. the revision so filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the district judge ..... . therefore, this court in the case of brij bhushan has not laid as proposition of law that in no case revision would be entertained where an amendment application has been rejected. the high court had upheld the order passed by the district judge refusing to entertain revision on the ground that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in the ..... thereto. in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. sri sirajul haq filed his written statement. the petitioner, however, filed an application for amendment of the plaint allegation under order vi, rule 6 of the civil procedure code. the application was numbered as paper no. 77ka. sri sirajul haq, who was defendant in the said suit, filed his objections. the trial court by means .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-25-2005
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2097
..... to use the said trade mark under the aforesaid act.10. the application for ad interim injunction was rejected by the city munsif, meerut vide order dated 4.9.1993 holding that the suit was not maintainable under section 9 of the code of civil procedure as it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court under section 195 of the tmm act as plaintiff ..... the aforesaid label or trade mark. the petitioner has challenged the maintainability of suit no. 401 of 1993 in the court of city munsif, meerut under section 9 of the code of civil procedure. the petitioner has also challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 28.7.1994 passed by the district judge, meerut in first appeal from order no. 304 ..... law.'37. it is firmly established that every and any sentimental grievance does not give any cause of action which can be tried in a court of law. neither the plaint nor the application discloses any basis or cause of action except assumed sentimental grievance. the manufacturing, trade and smoking of bidies or tobacco in any form is not prohibited by ..... petitioner.8. along with aforesaid suit, an application for ad interim injunction under order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure was also moved by the respondent no. 3 containing the same allegations as made in the plaint alleging that balance of convenience etc., was in his favour.9. preliminary objections were raised by the petitioner on the maintainability of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-25-2005
Reported in : AIR2006All59; 2006(1)AWC938
..... and having gone through the impugned order passed by the trial court as well as provisions of order xiv, rule 5 of the code of civil procedure, i am in full agreement by the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application 73 c2. thus, the order impugned in the present revision, in my opinion, does not warrant any interference by this court ..... the period 1.8.1993 to 31.7.2018?5. this application, which has been numbered as 73 c2, has been rejected by the order impugned in the present revision. the provisions of order xiv, rule 5 of the code of civil procedure are reproduced below:order xiv. settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon ..... in exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 of the code of civil procedure.8. in view of what has been stated above, this revision has no force and ..... . whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in suit by way of adverse possession as alleged in para 8 of the plaint ?2. whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property in suit as alleged in the plaint?3. whether the constructions and fixtures existing on the property in suit belonged to defendant no. 4 and the plaintiff was mere .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-20-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC1054
..... ) of sub-section (1) of section 115 of the code of civil procedure.' the apex court further held that amendment in the plaint would not amount to failure of justice, therefore interference by high court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure is erroneous.'5. in view of the provisions of section 115 of the code of civil procedure, as amended in the state of u.p. by ..... suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 27th september, 2004. aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, the respondent-defendant preferred a revision before the revisional court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. the revisional court vide order impugned in the present writ petition ..... pleadings, which has changed the nature of the case, therefore the trial court was in error in allowing the amendment application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. the revisional court thus rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.4. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submitted before this court that in fact the revision filed by the respondent .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-19-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC246
..... the year 2000, after 15 years from the date of filing of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an amendment application under order vi, rule 17 of the code of civil procedure seeking amendment in the plaint, which was partly allowed by the trial court vide order dated 15th february, 2000. against the order dated 15th february, 2000, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred a revision ..... ltd. v. jardine skinner and co. : 1scr438 .(8) the principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes cropper v. smith (1884) 26 ch d 700 (710-711), and secondly, that a ..... application for amendment filed by the petitioner-plaintiff holding that if the plaintiff is allowed to amend in the plaint, then it will affect the rights of the defendants. the trial court while rejecting the amendment application of the petitioner-plaintiff has relied upon a decision in k. raheja constructions ltd. and anr. v. ailiance ministries and anr. 1995 (2) arc 242 ..... anjani kumar, j.1. the petitioner-plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 12th january, 2001, passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioner approached the revisional court, who vide order dated 9th august, 2005, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner, approached this court by means .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-24-2005
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC3062
..... election petition.5. respondent no. 4 apart from filing his written statement has also preferred an application under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure read with section 87(1) of the act praying therein for rejecting the election petition on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.6. according to respondent no. 4 the election petition ..... petition is bereft of material facts. he further argues that the provisions of the code of civil procedure would not apply, therefore, the application preferred by respondent no. 4 for dismissal of the election petition at the outset is totally misconceived and is not maintainable and thus deserves to be rejected. according to the petitioner the election petition cannot be thrown out at the ..... that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and consequently, the plaint becomes bad. the distinction between 'material facts' and 'particulars' was brought by scott, l.j. in brace v. odhams press ltd. in the following passage : (all er p. 294).'the ..... the corrupt practice must be stated that the fact must be correlated to one of the heads of corrupt practice. just as a plaint without disclosing a proper cause of action cannot be said to be a good plaint, so also an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is no election petition at all. a petition which .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-12-2005
Reported in : AIR2005All291; 2005(3)AWC2751
..... . these issues have been decided as a primary issues in view of the provisions of order xiv, rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter called the 'cpc') vide order dated 22-1-2004. by consent of the parties valuation of the suit stood enhanced and the petitioner-plaintiffs deposited the ..... of the parties. report submitted by the munsarim has been accepted by the court. hence it cannot be reagitated in this court. application 90c therefore is rejected. fix 11-10-2004 for evidence.'3. again, the defendants-respondents filed another application to recall the said order, which is still pending.4. as ..... deficiency of court-fee, the court must give time to make the deficiency good and if during that period, the amount of court-fee is paid, the plaint takes its effect from the date of its original presentation. (vide brijbhukhan v. tota ram : air1929all75 . in this respect, the decision has to be ..... under :--'normally the dispute between the litigant and the registry in respect of court-fee, arises at the initial stage of the presentation of the plaint or the appeal and the defendant or the respondent is usually not interested in such a dispute unless the question of payment of court-fees involves ..... 1870 deals with the decision of question as to valuation and it provides that such an issue shall be decided by the court in which the plaint is filed and such decision shall be final between the parties to the suit. thus, it is evident from the provisions of section 12 of .....Tag this Judgment!