Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: chennai Page 1 of about 2,426 results (0.051 seconds)

Aug 31 1998 (HC)

Nesammal and Another Vs. Edward and Another

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1998(3)CTC165

..... the threshold. 12. the revision is also not maintainable since the order rejecting the plaint is a decree under the code of civil procedure. even if the plaint is rejected on some other grounds not covered by order 7 rule 11 code of civil procedure, the remedy is only an appeal under section 96 of code of civil procedure. the same is so declared in the decision reported in r.shanmughavelu pillai v ..... ]2scr782 ). 11. in view of all these decisions the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that unless the conditions are satisfied under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure, the plaint cannot be rejected is without any basis. the provisions of order 7 rule 11 are not exhaustive and the court has got inherent powers to see that the vexatious litigations are ..... . the further contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the ground mentioned for rejection of the plaint will not come under order 7, rule 11 of code of civil procedure. only if the grounds are satisfied under that rule, the court gets jurisdiction to reject the plaint is the argument of the counsel. i do not think that the said argument also could ..... be accepted. 6. as early as in lakshmanan chetty v. lakshmanam chettiar and others, a.i.r. 1915 mad. 483. their lordships held that the provisions of order 7, rule 11 of code of civil procedure are not exhaustive. that is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2013 (HC)

Eurotherm India Private Limited Vs. Johnson Lifts Private Limited

Court : Chennai

..... herein in filing the present suit. 10. for the purpose of this application, the court does not find any justification in the plea taken for rejection of the plaint under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure on a specious plea of no cause of action. hence, issues (ii) and (iii) are answered against the defendant/applicant herein. for the foregoing reasons ..... .1.2013. on notice, the defendant/applicant herein has come forward with this application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint. 3.1. in support of this application, the averments made in a portion of the plaint in o.s.no.7193 of 2012 and the affidavit filed in support of the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent ..... of 2013 in c.s.no.36 of 2013 r.sudhakar,j. this application is filed under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure read with order xiv rule 8 of the original side rules to reject the plaint filed along with the suit in c.s.no.36 of 2013 pending on the file of this court under the provisions/principles ..... .1, east main road anna nagar west extension chennai 600 001.respondent prayer: application is filed under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure read with order xiv rule 8 of the original side rules to reject the plaint filed along with the suit in c.s.no.36 of 2013 pending on the file of this court under the provisions/principles .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2012 (HC)

R.Ravichandran. Vs. the Corporation of Chennai, and anr.

Court : Chennai

..... rep.by its member secretary vs p.muthukrishnan and others].the aforesaid decisions are relating to the power of the court under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure relating to rejection of plaint.7. no doubt, the power of the court is wide; even then that has to be exercised cautiously and justly. here, the submissions on the ..... should not have been rejected as aforesaid. as such, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff wants opportunity to put forth his case before the lower court after numbering of the suit and that too after securing the presence of the defendants before the court.8. order xiv of the code of civil procedure contemplates preliminary issue ..... side of the plaintiff are to the effect that the controversy and dispute involved is a mixed question of law and facts andt before numbering the suit itself, the plaint ..... no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint. ............................................................................................................................in the present case the plaint was rejected under order 7 rule 11 of the cpc. such an order amounts to a decree under section 2 (2) and there is a right of appeal open to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2014 (HC)

Mr.R.Riyaz Ahmed Vs. J.G.Glass Industries Pvt.Ltd

Court : Chennai

..... of the true owner. in the present suit, the plaintiffs denied the ownership of the defendants. the defendants filed a petition under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint, raising the plea of maintainability of the suit claiming title by advers.possession, however, denying the title of the defendants. after the filing of the written statement on ..... the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, mr.v.ramesh, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the courts below rightly rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for the reason that the plaintiffs had not approached the court with clean hands and also taking inconsistent stand in the present suit and in ..... village sirthala and another]., the said prayer is not maintainable. therefore, on this ground also the plaint is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. the courts below, taking into consideration the case of both parties, rightly rejected the plaint. 17.there is no dispute with regard to the ratios laid down in the judgments relied upon ..... 27.06.2006, the plaintiffs filed an application in i.a.no.824 of 2006 under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure to implead six other persons .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2014 (HC)

M/S Johnson and Johnson Ltd., Vs. Shreem Enterpraises,

Court : Chennai

..... statement on 19.09.2013. thereafter on 05.02.2014, the defendant filed an application in i.a.no.899 of 2013 under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint.5. in the affidavit filed in support of the application in i.a.no.899 of 2013, the defendant has stated as follows: according to the defendant, the ..... .08.2014 in c.r.p.(pd)no.1436 of 2013 in m.ravichandran vs. g.suresh babu @ vincent held that an order declining to reject the plaint filed under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure passed by a court and subordinate to high court, only a revision shall lie and no appeal is maintainable. in view of the judgment of ..... -fledged trial.17. it is settled position that an application filed under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint should be filed based on the averments stated in the plaint and it would not be proper to file a petition to reject the plaint after filing of the written statement. in the case on hand, the defendant filed their written statement ..... the distributorship by extending the distributor agreement beyond the aforesaid period. (v) according to the defendant, as per the provisions of the specific relief act 1963, the plaint deserves to be rejected under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. any alleged disputes between the parties ought to be resolved by initiating arbitration proceedings. in these circumstances, the defendant prayed for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2014 (HC)

1. Johnson and Johnson Ltd., Vs. Hostech Services,

Court : Chennai

..... statement on 18.04.2013. thereafter on 25.06.2013, the defendants filed an application in i.a.no.302 of 2013 under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint.5. in the affidavit filed in support of the application in i.a.no.302 of 2013, the defendants have stated as follows: according to the defendants, the ..... .08.2014 in c.r.p.(pd)no.1436 of 2013 in m.ravichandran vs. g.suresh babu @ vincent held that an order declining to reject the plaint filed under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure passed by a court and subordinate to high court, only a revision shall lie and no appeal is maintainable. in view of the judgment of ..... -fledged trial.18. it is settled position that an application filed under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint should be filed based on the averments stated in the plaint and it would not be proper to file a petition to reject the plaint after the filing of the written statement. in the case on hand, the defendants filed their written ..... the distributorship by extending the distributor agreement beyond the aforesaid period. (v) according to the defendants, as per the provisions of the specific relief act 1963, the plaint deserves to be rejected under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. any alleged disputes between the parties ought to be resolved by initiating arbitration proceedings. in these circumstances, the defendants prayed for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 2006 (HC)

J. Lili Jabakani and ors. Vs. T.A. Chandrasekhar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2006(5)CTC848

..... court. that was not a fact in the present case. this is an application filed under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejecting the plaint, which is a drastic relief sought against the plaintiff, who knocked the doors of the court for justice. however, in the ..... 2 to 7. they filed an application in i.a. no. 18151 of 2004 under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint, since the same does not disclose a valid cause of action. the trial court, upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel ..... of the trial court rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint on the above said grounds.7. rule 11 of the order vii of the code of civil procedure provided that a plaint could be rejected (1) if the plaint did not disclose a ..... supreme court has held that for the purpose of deciding the application filed under rule 11 of order vii of the code of civil procedure, the averments in the plaint are germane and the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. the ..... cause of action; (2) where the relief claimed was undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the court, failed to do so; (3) where the relief claimed was properly valued, but the plaint .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2013 (HC)

Hindustan Uniliver Limited Vs. Sree Annapoorna Foods

Court : Chennai

..... in c.s.no.674 of 2010 and the challenge is to the order dated 28 february 2011 dismissing the application filed under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint in c.s.no.674 of 2010. the litigative journey 2. the respondents filed a suit in c.s.no.674 of 2010 praying for a decree of ..... such, the second suit was legally not maintainable.17. the appellant in the application filed under order vii rule 11 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure raised the following four grounds to reject the plaint: (i) relief of infringement claimed not maintainable: contention: according to the appellant, they have registered the trademark "annapurna" and "kissan annapurna" and as such they are ..... material particulars. none of the grounds raised by the appellant would constitute valid grounds to reject the plaint under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure 20. it is trite that for deciding an application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, the avements in the plaint alone are germane. the petitioner in an application under order vii rule 11 of the ..... v. janak singh (2012) 6 scale 530 referred to the earlier decisions relating to order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure and observed that while considering the application for rejection of plaint, the court has to examine the averments in the plaint alone and the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be totally irrelevant. summary of conclusion:23. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 2007 (HC)

S.R. Ramalingam Vs. R. Vivekanandan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2008)1MLJ180

..... while dealing with an application filed by the defendant under order 7 rule 11(c) of code of civil procedure to reject the plaint on the basis that the plaint was insufficiently stamped, it was held that in the absence of a specific application under section 149 of code of civil procedure and order passed by the court granting extension of time for payment of court-fee, the ..... petitioner are relating to the deficit court fee not paid on the plaint and therefore, it can be a ground for rejecting the plaint under order vii rule 11 of code of civil procedure, in the absence of an application filed under section 149 of code of civil procedure.21. on the other hand, the rejection of the memorandum of appeal cannot be made on the same grounds ..... deficit court fees should be paid only after obtaining necessary leave from the court and the analogy applicable in respect of rejection of plaint is also applicable to the rejection of appeal under order xli rule 3 of code of civil procedure. to substantiate her contention, she would rely upon the following judgments of this court, viz.,(i) 2007 (4) mlj 433 p. sakthivel v ..... available under order vii rule 11 of code of civil procedure. in fact, there is a provision .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2014 (HC)

Natarajan Vs. Jacob Manohar

Court : Chennai

..... will lie. ....". (x) k.s.geetha v. stanleybuck [air2003madras146, wherein in paragraph no.9, it has been held as follows:- ".9. order vii, rule 11 of code of civil procedure deals with rejection of plaint. once the plaint is rejected, then obviously nothing is pending before the court. that order is formal expression of an adjudication, which so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines ..... . ... from a reading of the above, it is clear that the revision is not maintainable since the rejection of the plaint is a decree under the code of civil procedure, and even if the plaint is rejected on some other grounds, the remedy is only an appeal under section 96 of cpc.". (xiii) govindarajan padayachi v. premananda vijayakumar @ prem anand [2013 (6) ctc467, wherein in paragraph no.9 ..... the rights of the parties. in fact, s.2 of the code of civil procedure which defines the term decree specifically states that the decree shall be deemed to include rejection of the plaint. section 96 of the code deals with appeal from original decrees. the claim of the respondents is that the order rejecting plaint being the decree by the trial court, the only remedy, if .....

Tag this Judgment!


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