Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: mumbai nagpur Page 1 of about 80 results (0.080 seconds)

Jun 25 2015 (HC)

Prabhudayal Vs. Shantabai and Others

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... entertain the suit or bar to the suit created by any law which is in force for the time being. under order vii, rule 11, the code of civil procedure, the provision enabling the court to reject the plaint either under clause (a) or (d) is provided. the court need not refer to any amount of evidence as merely on the basis of perusal of ..... legal position and reading the impugned order, it must be concluded that the learned judge has committed error of law in the facts and circumstances to reject the plaint under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. hence, the order. the impugned order is not sustainable. it is quashed and set aside. parties are directed to approach the trial court on 20 ..... the plaint, the plaint may be rejected. the legal position in this regard that order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure and order xiv, rule 2 of the code of civil procedure operate at different stages of the suit and scope of the provision was explained by hon'ble ..... reading as a whole must disclose cause of action which can be entertained by civil court. without these preliminaries, the plaint may be rejected in terms of order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. however, as contemplated under order xiv, rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure, unless the plaint is manifestly vexatious or meritless not disclosing any clear right to suit when issues .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2014 (HC)

Rajusingh Chudaman Rathod and Another Vs. Swami Vivekanand Sahakari Co ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... plaintiffs had instituted special civil suit no.27 of 2006 and 28 of 2006, in which the plaintiffs had prayed for ..... 2. the appellants herein (original plaintiffs) had instituted special civil suit no.30 of 2007 in which the applications were filed by defendant nos. 1 to 3 under order vii, rule 11d r/w. section 151 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that, on the earlier occasion, same ..... to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. in view of the reasons stated hereinabove, therefore, when under order vii, rule 13 of the code of civil procedure the plaintiffs are not precluded from filing fresh suit (despite dismissal of this second appeal), considering the findings of facts recorded by the courts ..... filed. i have already observed that it is open for the plaintiffs to avail of the concession under order vii, rule 13 of the code of civil procedure in order to file fresh suit and no irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiffs even if the present second appeal is dismissed. ..... fresh suit in utter disregard of the conditional permission granted in favour of the plaintiffs in view of o.xxiii, rules 3 and 4 of the code of civil procedure which runs thus : 1. withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim- 1 .......... 2 .......... 3. where the court is satisfied,- (a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 2014 (HC)

Smt. Sushilabai and Others Vs. Smt. Kamlarukh and Others

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... of limitation and also not maintainable in view of section 32 of the arbitration act. therefore, the trial court rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. 6. the plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order of rejection of the plaint bearing regular civil appeal no.56 of 1983. after hearing both sides, the first appellate court also found that the ..... plaint was liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11(d) of the civil procedure code and, therefore, dismissed the appeal with costs. 7. not ..... satisfied with these orders of rejection of plaint, the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2011 (HC)

State Bank of India Vs. Shri Sagar S/O Pramod Deshmukh and ors.

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... no.33 of 2010 challenges the order dated 23-2-2010 passed by the learned 2nd joint civil judge, senior division, amravati, rejecting the application exhibit 17 filed under order 7, rule 11 of the civil procedure code in special civil suit no.52 of 2010 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by the provisions of section 34 of the securitisation and ..... property in accordance with the provisions of the said act.6. the defendant no.3-bank filed an application exhibit 17, under order 7, rule 11 of the civil procedure code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit as framed was barred by section 34 of the said act. the plaintiffs filed their reply opposing the said application. by an order ..... a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. there is a strong presumption that civil courts have jurisdiction to decide all ..... entertain, try and decide the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property, the provisions of section 9 of the civil procedure code will have to be seen. section 9 of the code of civil procedure deals with the courts to try all civil suits unless barred. it states that the courts (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2016 (HC)

Manohar and Others Vs. Ramesh and Others

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... to such tenants. 5. by the impugned judgment dated 28th may, 1999, learned additional district judge had been pleased to reject the plaint on the ground that this suit was barred by the provisions of order ii rule 2 of code of civil procedure. it is held that the cause of action for a suit for specific performance had arisen when the first suit, namely ..... and willing to perform his part under contract?in affirmativeii.whether suit is barred by limitation?in negativeiii.whether suit is barred by provisions of order 2 rule 2 of code of civil procedure?in affirmativeiv.whether defendant is sole owner of suit property?in affirmativev.whether agreement dated 21.01.1991 get frustrated by acquisition of the land?in negativevi.whether plaintiff ..... justified in overruling the objection of the defendant and finding of the trial court that the present suit is barred by the provisions of order ii rule 2 of the code of civil procedure? . i would reframe those very questions and, in addition, two more questions, as under :- (1) whether the first appellate court committed an error in law in computing the limitation ..... within the meaning of art. 54 of the limitation act, from 30.1.1994 in the wake of detailed averments in paragraphs 3,4,5,6 in the plaint (exh.71) in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2014 (HC)

Chandansingh Vs. Kokila and Others

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... to the parties to lead evidence about it. unfortunately, relevant provisions were not considered in their proper perspectives as admittedly, the application was for rejection of the plaint under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure and not under order vii rule 10, the appellate court which was directed by this court to dispose of exh.5 only, under these ..... in its letter and spirit. 7. it is to be noted that when application was filed under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, prima facie on the ground that the plaint is liable to be rejected, if it does not disclose a cause of action or when the relief is undervalued, and the plaintiff, fails to correct the valuation ..... court may exercise its power to reject the plaint under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. 8. in other words, when the application was filed with prayer for rejection of the plaint, learned trial judge ought not have returned the plaint under order vii rule 10 of the code of civil procedure. furthermore, there are requirements, when the plaint is returned it is obligatory upon learned ..... judge returning the plaint giving reasons for returning it, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2015 (HC)

Kishor Vs. 1. The Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of bar under section 149 of the said act. it, therefore, rejected the plaint under provisions of order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. 4. the plaintiff being aggrieved by aforesaid adjudication preferred appeal. first appellate court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 5. shri n ..... the defendant nos.1 and 2 is not entitled for demolishing the house property of the plaintiff. the objection to bar of jurisdiction was raised under section 9a of the code of civil procedure by the defendant no.2. 8. as the issue of jurisdiction relates to the notice dated 18.11.2010 issued under section 53 of the said act it is ..... was made to direct the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to grant the sanctioned map. the defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed preliminary objections under section 9a of the code of civil procedure vide ex. 19. the objection raised was that the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit in view of the bar contained in section 149 of the said ..... , municipal committee, ludhiana, air 1963 sc 1547 which considering the aspect of ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court by a special statute, it was held as under: ??7. under s. 9 of the code of civil procedure the court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. a statute, therefore, expressly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2014 (HC)

Lokesh son of Ramraoji Navghare Vs. Janardhan son of Haribhau Bhisikar ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... . 325 of 2013 for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and restoration of possession and permanent injunction before the civil judge, senior division, nagpur. 3. respondents/defendants filed application (exhibit 14) for rejection of plaint under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure on the ground that even though plaintiffs have, interalia, sought for relief of restoration of possession the suit ..... in this writ petition. 5. heard learned counsel for the parties at length. perused plaint, application, reply thereto and impugned order passed by the trial court. i have gone through the relevant provisions of the maharashtra court fees act, suit valuation act and the code of civil procedure. 6. learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon ruling in inderlal panwarmal v. ..... khialdas and ors reported in 1969 dgls (ahs) 1017 to contend that it was not open to the trial court to revise the valuation which the petitioner has put in its plaint and the case clearly falls within ..... of the assessment payable in respect of the land. ? article 7 of schedule i contained in the maharashtra courtfees act, provides for ad valorem fee on any other plaint, application or petition (including memorandum of appeal), to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss including cases wherein application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2014 (HC)

Ravindra Vs. Lakhmichand Prakashchand Keswani and Others

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... performance of the agreements dated 9th of february, 2011 and 11th of february, 2011 has been rejected by the trial court under order 7 rule 11(a) of code of civil procedure holding that reading of the plaint along with documents produced on record show that there is no concluded contract with the defendant nos ..... to execute an agreement to sell which is not enforcible. he submits that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action as contemplated by order 7 rule 11(a) of the code of civil procedure and it was therefore rightly rejected by the trial court. 4. the point for determination is as under - " ..... whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint under order 7 rule 11(a) of the c.p.code on the ground that there was no ..... concluded contract between the parties and the agreements were not ratified by the co-owners who were not parties to the agreement". 5. undisputedly, the issues have not been framed. there are clear averements in the plaint ..... to be gathered after the oral evidence is led. the issues are required to be framed and without going into the rival claims the plaint cannot be rejected. the principles of law laid down in the decisions cited cannot be disputed and the same shall be considered by the trial court while .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2014 (HC)

Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society Limited, Vs. Municipal ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... colourable exercise of power vested in it by law. 3. respondentcorporation filed application (exhibit 17) under order 7, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for direction to the petitioner pay deficit court fee and in the alternative, for rejection of plaint. it was stated in paragraph 2 of the application that as per section 6 (iv) (d) of the bombay court fee ..... challenge in this writ petition. 5. heard learned counsel for the parties at length. perused plaint, application, reply thereto and impugned order passed by the trial court. i have gone through the relevant provisions of the maharashtra court fees act, suit valuation act and the code of civil procedure. 6. learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon ruling in inderlal panwarmal v. khialdas ..... and ors reported in 1969 dgls (ahs) 1017 to contend that it was not open to the trial court to revise the valuation which the petitioner has put in its plaint and the case clearly falls within section ..... value of the assessment payable in respect of the land. ? article 7 of schedule i contained in the maharashtra courtfees act, provides for ad valorem fee on any other plaint, application or petition (including memorandum of appeal), to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss including cases wherein application or .....

Tag this Judgment!


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