Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: kolkata appellate Page 1 of about 60 results (0.213 seconds)

Dec 10 2010 (HC)

Golok Lall Seal. Vs. Dsk Real Estate Limited and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... court at alipore, in title suit no. 1673 of 2009 by which the application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint filed by the defendant no.2 was rejected by the learned trial judge. the said defendant is aggrieved. hence he has come before this court with this application. 2 ..... the case where the defendant no.2 prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law. as such the court is ..... one of the reliefs which was claimed by the plaintiff cannot be granted for any reason whatsoever, the plaint as a whole, cannot be rejected under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure particularly when the sufficient cause of action has been made out in the said suit in support of ..... of the code of civil procedure, the court is required to consider the pleadings made out by the plaintiff in the plaint alone and if on such consideration, the court finds that any of the conditions as mentioned in order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure is attracted, the plaint can be rejected. here is ..... cause of action has been made out by the plaintiff against all the defendants for the reliefs claimed in the said suit, this court cannot reject the plaint by holding that the suit is vexatious, so far as the non-contracting defendants are concerned. 16. under such circumstance, this court holds .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2010 (HC)

Dilip Bhattacharya and ors. Vs. Ratan Kumar Sen and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... 2007 in the context of the above discussion. 7. since it is settled law that while considering the defendants application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, the court cannot consider any other statement save and except the pleadings made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint for ascertaining attraction of the provisions of order 7 rule 11 of the ..... possession and damages and 2 also for permanent injunction. by an order dated 20th september, 2006, the defendants application for rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the civil procedure code was rejected on contest. the said order is the subject matter of challenge in civil revisional application being c.o. no. 3755 of 2007. 2. by subsequent order dated 23-02-2010, the ..... incidental relief for recovery of possession also cannot be granted in the present suit. mr. banerjee thus prayed for the rejection of the plaint on the ground of bar of law in maintaining the suit under order 7 rule 11 of the civil procedure code. 21. mr. roy choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing for the opposite parties, refuted such submission of mr. banerjee by ..... of law in maintaining the suit, as claimed by the petitioner in this proceeding. thus this court holds that this revisional application has no merit. the revisional application thus stands rejected. 27. both the aforesaid revisional applications are thus disposed of. 28. urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2010 (HC)

Vinay Krishna ArorA. Vs. M/S. A.N.G. Estate Developers and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... is not at all relevant for the purpose consideration of the defendants application for rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. while considering the defendants such application for rejection of plaint, court is required to consider the pleadings made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint for ascertaining as to whether the pleadings made out therein constitute cause of action ..... of the said order before any higher forum. thus according to mr. banerjee, the pleadings of the amended plaint are required to be considered for ascertaining the application filed by the defendant no.1 for rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. i accept such submission of mr. banerjee.8. on perusal of the said application for ..... as a whole is barred under the provision of any law then the court has to reject the plaint. 15. this test has not been applied by the learned trial judge while dealing with the defendants said application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. neither the learned trial judge considered as to whether the cause of action for the ..... rejection of plaint filed by the defendant no.1, this court finds that the said defendant prayed for rejection of the plaint on two-fold grounds, viz. (i) for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 2010 (HC)

Ms. Anmol Biscuits (P) Ltd. Vs. Sri Amar Chand Nag and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... decree in the said suit and whether the rejection of the prayer of the applicant to expunge or strike out his name from the cause title of the plaint was proper or not the provisions of order 1 rule 10(2) of the code of civil procedure should be looked into, which reads thus : ..... with section 151 of the code of civil procedure before the learned court below praying for expunging or striking out the name of the petitioner company from the cause title of the plaint of the said suit, but hearing the said application the learned court below was pleased to reject the said application of the ..... , whereby the learned civil judge concerned has rejected the petition of the defendant no. 5 under order 1 rule 10(2) read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure praying for expunging or striking out the name of the defendant no. 5 company from the cause title of the plaint. 2. it is ..... palika sangrur and others relied upon by the learned advocate for the opposite party/plaintiff that provisions of order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure confers wide discretion on the trial court and if the trial court exercises discretion in favour of the applicant, who wishes to be impleaded ..... , learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 1/ plaintiff, has submitted that the provisions of order 1 rule 10(2) of the code of civil procedure also provides for adding a party whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2010 (HC)

Mamata Seal and ors. Vs. Santana Chatterjee and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... causes court, calcutta in ejectment suit no.92 of 2003 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint upon payment of costs and rejection of a petition under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.2. the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest / opposite parties herein instituted a suit for recovery of possession ..... contention of the petitioners that the present plaintiffs/opposite parties herein have no cause of action to proceed with the instant suit and so the plaint should be rejected. both the petitions having been disposed of in the manner indicated earlier, the defendants/petitioners herein have come up with this revisional application. ..... regard to allowing the application under order 6 rule 17 of the c.p.c.9. so far as the application for rejection of the plaint, i find that the original plaint lays down the cause of action.10. subsequently on devolution of interest, the vendees have been added as co-plaintiffs in ..... right, title and interest by the deed of conveyance.12. therefore, i am of the view that the learned trial judge has also rightly rejected the petition under order 7 rule 11 of the c.p.c. holding that the petition of the defendants is devoid of any substance. so ..... amendment is nothing but an elaboration of the details of the needs of the plaintiff in support of their prayer for reliefs sought for in the plaint. so, there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the learned trial judge. during argument mr. ghosh, learned advocate appearing on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 2010 (HC)

AlauddIn Halder and anr. Vs. Seth Daulat Ram Lilani and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... 15 of the code of civil procedure praying for direction upon the plaintiffs to appear in person for proper verification. it is also contended that the verification of the plaint has not been properly done. it was not signed by any of the plaintiffs. therefore, the plaint should be rejected. that application was rejected by the learned ..... person who is affirming the averments of the plaint. similarly, the provision for verification has also been made for ..... authority. in fact, after filing of the suit, the defect as pointed out by the defendants has been cured by proper verification of the plaint subsequently and by execution of another power of attorney in favour of the plaintiffs.4. therefore, the question that arises for decision in this application ..... reliefs through their alleged constituted attorney, mansur ali molla. the petitioners have been possessing the suit property, as described in the schedule of the plaint, since purchase in the year 1992. the so-called power of attorney is a forged document and mansur ali molla was not at all empowered ..... ali molla. but the plaint and the verification have not been signed by any of the plaintiffs. according to order 6 rule 1 of the c.p.c., the plaint shall be signed by the plaintiff and his lawyer. such a procedure has been adopted in the code to fix responsibility on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2010 (HC)

Parameshwari Devi Soni and ors. Vs. Kishan Kumar at Kant Jhunjhunwala ...

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... the plaintiffs could not seek for amendment at the earlier stage. so, if the amendment is allowed, the defendants/opposite parties herein would be prejudiced and so the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. therefore, the point that emerges for ..... filing of the application for amendment of the plaint, the suit was at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. therefore, the trial of the suit has commenced. in such a situation, the said application for amendment shall be governed by the proviso to order 6 rule 17 of the code of civil procedure, but the application has nowhere stated that ..... of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated no.165 dated july 6, 2010 passed by the learned civil judge (senior division), eighth court, alipore in title suit no.19 of 2006 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint.2. the short fact is that the plaintiffs instituted a title suit being number t.s.115 of 1995 (subsequently ..... of cross-examination of the p.w.1 on behalf of the defendants. at that time, the plaintiffs sought for amendment of the plaint by an application as appearing annexure p-6 at page 53. that application was rejected by the impugned order by the learned trial judge. being aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred this application.5. mr. bidyut kr. banerjee, learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2011 (HC)

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels Ltd. Vs. Ms. Kwality Restaurant.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... the order dated february 8, 2010 passed by the learned judge, small causes court, fourth bench, calcutta in ejectment suit no.33 of 2001 thereby rejecting an application under order 39 rule 7 of the code of civil procedure.2. the plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit for ejectment of the premises in suit against the defendant/opposite party herein in respect of the ..... premises in suit, as described in the schedule to the plaint on the ground of own use and occupation. the defendant/opposite party herein entered appearance and ..... , i find that the application of the local inspection of the suit premises was rejected on the ground that the extent of accommodation of the suit premises is quite available from the body of the plaint. moreover, there is no dispute as to the schedule of the plaint wherein the extent of the accommodation of the demised premises of the defendant has been ..... described. so, that application has no connection with the present accommodation. the earlier application has been rejected according to the situation that the extent of accommodation of the demised premises has been sufficiently described in the schedule of the plaint.8. in that view of the matter, i am of the opinion that the learned trial judge has committed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2011 (HC)

M/S. Honeypath Construction and ors. Vs. Kishore Das and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... and is directed against the order no.99 dated august 26, 2009 passed by the learned civil judge (senior division), second court, barasat, district north 24 parganas in title suit no.3 of 1999 thereby rejecting an application under order 18 rule 4 of the code of civil procedure filed by the plaintiffs.2. the short fact is that the plaintiffs/petitioners herein instituted a ..... , 1997 as exhibit as secondary evidence. the prayer for adducing evidence by the plaintiff no.3 has been rejected by the impugned order. at the same time, the learned trial judge has also closed ..... title suit no.3 of 1999 for specific performance of contract, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendants/opposite parties herein in respect of the property as described in the schedule of the plaint ..... . the suit was at the stage of recording evidence and in that suit, the plaintiff no.1 deposed on behalf of all the plaintiff. subsequently, the plaintiff no.3 tendered evidence under order 18 rule 4 of the code of civil procedure for marking a copy of a document dated december 13 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2011 (HC)

Sushma Singh Vs. Rabindra Singh

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... ) read with section 151 thereof. the grounds on which the learned civil judge was urged to reject the plaint are two fold viz. i) the ..... debts recovery appellate tribunal & ors. reported in air 1998 sc 634. a prayer was made to allow the revisional application and for rejection of the plaint in the title suit upon setting aside of the order of the learned judge. 8. the application was vehemently opposed by mr. ..... .1 in respect of the suit properties. he further referred to order vii rule 13 of the code to contend that even if a plaint is rejected upon an application under rule 11 of order vii being allowed, that by itself would not preclude presentation of ..... defendant no.3/petitioner prayed for rejection of the plaint, the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 has filed an application under order vi rule 17 of the code praying for amendment of the plaint. 4. the application under order vii rule 11 of the code was taken up for consideration by ..... civil judge (senior division), at sealdah. the said suit has been instituted by the opposite party no.1 herein against the petitioner and five other defendants for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in schedules a and b to the plaint. 2. the defendant no.3/petitioner filed an application under order vii rule 11, civil procedure code, 1908 (hereafter the code .....

Tag this Judgment!


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