Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: kerala Page 1 of about 523 results (0.035 seconds)

Mar 01 2006 (HC)

Saranya Zaveri and anr. Vs. Kamadon Academy P. Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [2006]133CompCas546(Ker); 2008(38)PTC554(Ker)

..... survives for consideration is as to whether the ernakulam court has territorial jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions in the code of civil procedure. admittedly, sections 16 to 19 of the civil procedure code have no application to the present suit. under section 20 of the civil procedure code the suit is to be instituted in that court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendants or each ..... nullity. (vide paras. 25 to 27 of dhodha house v. s.r. maingi [2006] 32 ptc 1).15. this is not a case where the plaint is liable to be rejected under order vii, rule 11 (a), civil procedure code for the reason that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. this is really a case where the cause of action alleged in the ..... liverpool and london s.p. and i association ltd. v. m.v. sea success : (2004)9scc512 . an order refusing to reject the plaint under order vii, rule 11, civil procedure code amounts to a preliminary judgment the remedy against which is an appeal and not a writ petition under article 227 of the constitution of india. (vide paragraphs 128 and 139 ..... issues incorporating the above objections. the petitioners also filed exhibit p8 petition (i.a. no. 2577 of 2005) under order vii, rule 11 read with sections 21 and 151, civil procedure code for rejection of the plaint on the aforementioned objections. accordingly, the court below on july 25, 2005, framed two preliminary issues as follows:1. whether the second additional district court, ernakulam, has jurisdiction .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 2003 (HC)

CochIn Kagaz Ltd. Vs. Bharath Cartons

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2004Ker336

..... maintainable. nothing is, however, stated in that order as to why a petition for review will not lie under order xlvii, rule 1, cpc against a judgment rejecting the plaint for non-payment of the court-fee within the time specified by the court.6. order xlvii, rule 1(1)(a) days that any ..... as his lordship then was, speaking for the bench, observed that when a rejection of the plaint under order vii, rule 11(c) of the code is a decree and the party has a substantive right to appeal under section 96 of the cpc and, in cases where he is able to make out a case for ..... respondent who is the defendant in the suit. but, none appeared .4. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.5. judgment dated 7-3-2003 passed in o.s. no. 328 of 2001 shows that the plaint was rejected under order vii, rule 11, cpc ..... 2003 under sections 149 and 151 and order xlvii, rule 1, cpc praying for a review of the judgment dated 7-3-2003. the learned munsiff summarily dismissed the application for review as per order dated 18-3-2003. aggrieved, this civil revision petition is filed.3. notice was served on the sole ..... orderk.k. denesan, j.1. the simple question that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the court which rejected the plaint for insufficient court-fee can review the order of rejection.2. the above question has arisen in the following manner : the revision petitioner is the plaintiff in o.s. no. 328 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2003 (HC)

Gangadharan Vs. James Joseph

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2003(2)KLT619

..... ) and also in narayanan v. madhavan (1999 (2) klt 84) in which it was held that the remedy available to the party is to move the court rejecting the plaint under section 151 of the civil procedure code for restoration of the plaint. it is true that in abdulkhader v. abdul rahiman (1988 (1) klt 680) another single judge of this court held that neither the ..... to a decree. consequently, dismissal of an appeal as time-barred is also not a decree.' in view of the definition of decree contained in section 2(2) of the code the principle laid down in ratan singh's case (supra) can have no application to the facts of the case. the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the ..... as pw. 1. the learned sub judge found that the delay was not properly explained and that there is inordinate delay in depositing the balance court fee. hence rejected both the applications. this civil revision petition is filed challenging those orders. 5. the revision petitioner/plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale of the suit properties for a total consideration of rs ..... code nor the court fees act enables the court to dismiss a suit on merits for non-payment of court fees and an appeal is maintainable against that order. in abdulkhader's case (supra) it was held that when the plaint is rejected for non-payment of court fee the court can enlarge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2000 (HC)

Mable Vs. Dolores

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2001Ker353

..... single judge of this court in revision directed the trial court to restore the suit to file in a case in which that court had rejected the plaint under o. vii r. 11(c) of the code of civil procedure. the reasoning that such a suit cannot be restored, was brushed aside by the learned judge by stating that hypertechnical stand should not be adopted ..... would arise. it is therefore clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under s. 151 of the code of civil procedure when a plaint gets rejected in terms of o. vii r. 11 of the code. in varghese v. devi academy (1999 (1) klt 440), the learned single judge of followed a decision of this court to gopalakrishna pillai ..... balance court fee had been paid. the court therefore rejected the plaint under o. vii r. 11(c) of the code of civil procedure.4. rejection of a plaint under o. vii r. 11(c) of the code is a decree as defined in s. 2(2) of the code of civil procedure and it is hence appealable under s. 96 of the code. the plaintiff filed an appeal. the plaintiff also ..... be held to be not laying down the correct law. we must remember that a rejection of the plaint under o. vii r. 11 of the code of civil procedure does not even preclude the presentation of a fresh plaint as can be seen from o. vii r.13 of the code (see also delhi wakf board v. jagdish kumar narang (1997) 10 scc 192). 10. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 2014 (HC)

Seethalakshmi Vs. Radhamani Amma @ Radhamma

Court : Kerala

..... petition as i.a.no.885/2014 in o.s.no.91/2014 contending that the suit is hit by order 2 rule 2 of the code of civil procedure and that the plaint may be rejected on that ground. the respondents herein filed their objections on c.r.p. no.688/14 & o.p.(c) no.2541/14 3 ..... also the petition praying for joint trial, and dismissed the petition for rejecting the newly instituted suit under order 2 rule 2 cpc.5. the civil revision petition is directed against the order in i.a.no.885/2014 disallowing the prayer for rejection of plaint in o.s.no.91/2014 and the original petition is directed against ..... was complete and it was ripe for trial. further, learned counsel pointed out that joint trial cannot be adopted as a method to circumvent the provisions of code of civil procedure. it is further pointed out that if there was any infirmity or defect in the pleadings or in the relief sought for c.r.p. no.688 ..... .9. as far as i.a.no.885/2014, petition filed by the petitioners seeking to have the plaint rejected under order 7 rule 11 cpc on the ground that the plaint is hit by order 2 rule 2 cpc is concerned, a reading of the order shows that the court below has not taken a final decision on ..... be justified to a considerable extent in its finding to defer consideration of petition to reject the plaint in o.s.no.91/2014. it is too premature at this stage to enter a finding regarding the applicability of order 2 rule 2 cpc. as far as the precedents are concerned, there are decisions either way. however, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1995 (HC)

Neela Productions, Sreekumar theatre, Trivandrum and ors. Vs. S. Kumar ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1996Ker239

..... learned subordinate judge refused leave. the said refusal, according to learned judge, was in exercise of the powers under section 151 of the code of civil procedure.4. the code of civil procedure contains provisions for rejection of the plaint for return of the plaint for representation before proper forum and for dismissal of the suit. provisions relating to any one of these courses were not resorted to by ..... , the 4th defendant is having place of business at ernakulam.2. before filing the suit, he sought permission of the subordinate judge, ernakulam under section 20(b) of the code of civil procedure for leave to prosecute the suit in that court. the leave was so sought for because defendants i to 3 were having their residence and place of business elsewhere. court ..... when the court finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that the defendants are staying outside its territorial jurisdiction, the court should have rejected the plaint or returned it to the plaintiffs for presentation before the proper court or dismissed the same in accordance with the provisions contained in the c.p.c. instead of resorting ..... granted permission to the plaintiffs to institute the suit. the suit was thus entertained and taken on file. along with the plaint, plaintiffs moved i.a.627/94 for a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 2008 (HC)

Mercy Rose and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2009Ker59; 2008(3)KLJ511

..... the fee payable under the act by issuing notification in the gazette.5. clause (c) of rule 11 of order vii of the code of civil procedure provides for rejection of the plaint where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper in sufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within ..... a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so. in view of sections 107(2) and 141 of the code of civil procedure, the ..... payment of court fee in the matter of appeals arising out of the judgment of the land acquisition court. sections 73, 73a, 74 and 74a of the act contain special procedure and special provisions in respect of the suits, appeals, revisions, etc. of the categories mentioned in those sections where total or partial exemption from payment of court fee is provided .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2003 (HC)

Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Vs. George

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2004(1)KLT579

..... ) klt 612, also the above position was accepted. in that decision, the question which came up for consideration was whether power under section 151 of the code of civil procedure can be invoked when a plaint gets rejected under order vii rule 11 of c.p.c. and when he has already approached the appellate court with an appeal. the court can extend the period .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2005 (HC)

Bhaskaran Nair Vs. Chandramathiyamma

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2006(1)KLT533

..... the constitution of india.2. it is now well-settled that an order granting or refusing to grant amendment of pleadings is not revisable under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, particularly after its amendment in the year 2002. instances are numerous of such orders being challenged before this court by means of writ petitions filed under article 226 ..... decision reported in kalpakamani and ors. v. shajathan and anr. ilr 2005 (3) kerala 860, reads as follows:civil procedure code, 1908--section 115 amendment of plaint-rejection civil revision petition filed under section 115 of c.p.c.. is not maintainable against the order of rejection- writ petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india is also not maintainable.(emphasis supplied)the underlined ..... : air2005ker241 , rendered by a learned single judge of this court also was one disposing of civil revision petitions filed against order rejecting a prayer for amendment of the plaint under order 6 rule 17 c.p.c. that was a case wherein an amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a totally inconsistent plea altering the basic nature of the suit itself was ..... or article 227 of the constitution of india. it has, indeed, been judicially noticed by the supreme court of india that after the amendment of section 115 of the code of civil procedure, all the high courts in india are flooded with petitions under article 227 of the constitution of india challenging all sorts of interlocutory orders. vide rajeshwari v. puran .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 2003 (HC)

Mohanan Vs. Nalinakshan

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2003(3)KLT532

..... passed under order vii rule 11(c) is a decree under section 2(2) of the code of civil procedure. hence appealable under section 96 of the code. plaintiff without filing an appeal, as already indicated, filed an application under order ix ..... not paid and no application for extension of time was also made. hence learned munsiff rejected the plaint 27.11.2000. plaintiff then filed i.a. no. 2352 of 2000 for restoration of the suit under order ix rule 4 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure. defendant resisted the petition relying on the decision of a division bench of this court ..... section 4a it cannot be said that the code of civil procedure renders no remedy by invoking inherent jurisdiction when the case was restored by which it was caused any prejudice. i find it difficult to sustain the reasoning of the learned munsiff as well as the district judge. this is a case where the plaint was rejected for non-payment of court fee. decree ..... in mathunny panicker v. mariamma kunjamma (1977 klt 927). objection raised by the defendant was accepted by the learned munsiff and the munsiff passed the following order:'the defendant resists the application contending that a plaint which rejected for non payment of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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