Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-05-2001
Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR537
..... the suit and takes away a vested right of limitation or any other valuable right accrued to the defendant.(2) an order rejecting the plaint.(3) an order refusing leave to defend the suit in an action under order 37, code of civil procedure.(4) an order rescinding leave of the trial judge granted by him under clause 12 of the letters patent.(5) an ..... maintainability of letters patent appeal. the submission of mr. pratap is that the order passed by the learned single judge refusing to reject the plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action under order 7, rule 11(a) of code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) is not appealable as it is not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters ..... actually according to law, on the allegations contained in the plaint, defendant no. 2 was agent of the union of india or not. mere formal allegation ..... on a meaningful and not formal reading of a plaint it is manifest that the plaint is vexatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue trial court should exercise its power under order vii, rule 11, code of civil procedure, and should reject the plaint. so it is meaningful reading of the plaint which is required. it is to be seen if .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-14-2001
Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR781
..... no. 448/1999 dismissing the plaintiff's appeal filed against the order passed by the 6th joint civil judge, jr. division, nagpur on 17-8-1999 rejecting the plaint under order 7, rule 11(d) of civil procedure code inter alia holding that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of section 9 of c. ..... .7. the defendant filed an application under section 9(a) read with order 7, rule 11 of civil procedure code contending that the suit as framed is not maintainable; that the suit is not of civil nature and it is purely of religious nature and directly abrogating the defendant's right under articles 25(1 ..... so that the suit has to be entertained although it involves decision as to the religious aspect. from the allegations that are made in the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiffs are having particular religious belief on the basis of holy quaran and the defendant does not have those ..... expressly or impliedly barred. (explanation i) : a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.(explanation ii) : for the purposes of ..... injunction, was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 42 of the specific relief act. the plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid orders in regular civil appeal no. 448/1999 but the appellate court also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. it is against that order .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-21-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR243; 2002(1)BomCR141
..... of rs. 33 lacs. in the last suit, the original defendant filed an application under order vii, rule 11(d) of the civil procedure code for rejection of the plaint. that prayer was rejected. the appeal from order is preferred by the original defendant challenging the order for furnishing security by the original defendant to the extent of ..... a fresh suit, in the circumstances referred to above, the last suit no. 1505/1996 was barred suit and, therefore, the plaint should have been rejected.10. counsel for the original defendant also contended that apart from the aforesaid provision, the last suit was barred by limitation because the original defendant ..... the original defendant (who has filed revision as well as appeal), contended that two points support his contention under the specific order of refusal to reject the plaint or dismiss the suit under his objection. according to him, the plaintiff had filed first suit no. 400/93 for declaration and injunction. the ..... permission to the plaintiff with liberty to institute a fresh suit. further, order vii, rule 11(d) provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. counsel for the original defendant contended that when order xxiii, rule 4 prohibits institution of ..... d.g. deshpande, j.1. the appeal from order as well as the civil revision application have been filed by the original defendants in suit no. 1505/1996.2. there is a long history giving .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-05-2001
Reported in : 2001(4)BomCR698; 2002(1)MhLj930
..... in law. it was, therefore, the duty of the trial court to dismiss such a plaint at the threshold in exercise of powers under order 7, rule 1 l(d) of civil procedure code which postulates that plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.5. the courts below have clearly misdirected in concluding that ..... the person who had filed the plaint was duly authorized by the board of maharashtra state textile corporation ltd ..... murarji peth, solapur. the respondent plaintiff instituted a suit before the court of joint civil judge, j. d., solapur being regular civil suit no. 483 of 1982 for possession of the suit property. the plaint as filed by the respondent would admit the position that the respondent was a textile mill and a public limited company ..... 1. this writ petition, under article 227 of the constitution of india, takes exception to the order passed by the 5th additional district judge, solapur dated 19th september 1989 in civil appeal no. 140 of 1986.2. the petitioner claims to be in occupation of the premises being room no. 175, consisting of four rooms in municipal house no. 60/4, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-12-2001
Reported in : 2002(2)ALLMR182; 112CompCas143(Bom)
..... had held that in such a case the trial court should exercise its power under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908. under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that the plaint ought to be rejected because the suit appears to be based on a cause of action which is barred by law, and as such, there ..... . heard the learned counsel for the parties. by this chamber summons the defendants are seeking the relief of rejection of the plaint and/or striking off of the plaint and dismissal of the suit as per the provisions of order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908.2. mr. tulzapurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants has submitted that in the instant ..... plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. it is the contention of mr. tulzapurkar ..... which is the issue involved in the present suit is totally illegal, and as such, plaint ought to be rejected.4. mr. tulzapurkar brought to my notice the provisions of order vii rule 11 (a) and (d) of code of civil procedure, 1908. rule 11 (a) contemplates that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. rule 11 (d) contemplates that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-08-2001
Reported in : II(2002)DMC58
..... shall be instituted without the nature and the characteristics of the incurable disease being verified by way of previous examination carried out as per articles 247 and 260 of the code of civil procedure.'7. the suit for divorce has been filed on the ground mentioned at sub-clause (10) of article 4, namely, 'contagious disease found incurable or an incurable disease involving ..... for the parties.2. admit. by consent, taken up for final hearing.3. in this appeal, the judgment and order dated 30th march, 2001 passed by the iind additional civil judge, senior division, margao rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit with costs is impugned, inter alia, on the following grounds :(1) that the learned judge has erred in dismissing the suit after ..... just salutary but in terms mandatory. failure to comply with the said provisions of para 4 would, therefore, make the suit not maintainable. the learned trial judge has passed order rejecting the plaint and, therefore, dismissing the suit. the same does not require interference.10. in view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed and disposed of. no order as to costs ..... rejecting the plaint and hence the judgment and decree is illegal and bad in law; and(2) that the provisions of para 4 of article 4 of the law of divorce are directory .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-06-2001
Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR98
..... court which takes the view that the plaint as presented was barred by section 42 of the act of 1971. understood thus, such an order would be one under rule 10 which is appealable under clause (a) of rule 1 of order xliii of code of civil procedure. in my view, therefore, this objection deserves to be rejected.13. with regard to the next objection ..... . 5 to 8 regarding maintainability of the appeal. no doubt, the impugned order passed by the trial court refers to the fact that the plaint is returned under order viii, rule 10-a of the code of civil procedure to the plaintiffs to present the same before the appropriate forum within two months from the date of the said order. however, this submission clearly ..... before this court is that in such a situation, the suit as filed was competent within the meaning of section 9 of the code of civil procedure.9. in other words, the counsel for the appellants submits that on reading the plaint as a whole and the reliefs claimed therein, it is clear that the reliefs that were essentially claimed were founded on the ..... overlooks the complete scheme of the relevant provisions. relevant provisions with regard to return of a plaint can be traced to rules 10 and 10-a of order vii of the code of civil procedure. rule 10 postulates that subject to the provisions of rule 10-a, the plaint shall, at any stage of the suit, be permitted to be presented to the court in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-2001
Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR356; (2001)4BOMLR534; 2001(3)MhLj151
..... the said land. after going through the contents of the written statement filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs desired tp amend their plaint. accordingly, they moved an application for amendment of plaint order vi rule 17 of the code of civil procedure (c.p.c. for short). accordingly, the trial court was requested to permit them to carry out amendment to para ..... by the plaintiffs was totally inconsistent and contradictory and was nothing but an afterthought as such amendment was opposed by them.5. the above application seeking to amend plaint was rejected bythe trial court vide its order dated 3rd september, 1998 holding thatinconsistent pleas cannot be allowed. the said order is the subject matterof challenge in the present revision ..... application. 6. the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners contends 'that the entire order rejecting prayer for amendment of the plaint is absolutely perverse and the same suffers from material illegality and, consequently, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. he further contends that while ..... one and the same suit. it was further submitted that the impugned amendment, if allowed would give rise to the inconsistent causes of action and, therefore, the impugned order rejecting an application for amendment should not be disturbed, especially, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this court. the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 sought to place .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-01-2001
Reported in : AIR2001Bom416; 2002(1)ALLMR112; (2001)4BOMLR584; 2001(3)MhLj812
..... court noted that considerable time is normally taken by the scrutiny committee for verification of caste claims and for this purpose, the apex court with a view to streamline the procedure for issuance of a'soclal status certificates, their scrutiny and approval, issued certain guidelines to be followed by the scrutiny committee, while deciding the caste claims. the guidelines relevant ..... the suit. the trial court, accordingly, directed return of the plaint for presentation to the appropriate court. 8. feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decision rendered by the trial court, the petitioner filed appeal being misc. civil appeal no. 549 of 1993 against the order under order 43 rule l(a) of civil procedure code, 1908 ('c.p.c.' for short). the said appeal ..... of 1990 to challenge the order dated 27th november, 1990; passed by the collector, pune. this court rejected the said writ petition by observing that the petition contained disputed question of fact. 6. the petitioner faced with the above situation approached civil court with a suit for declaration and injunction and sought a declaration that the order dated 27th november, 1990 ..... and decree dated 27th september, 1993 passed by the joint civil judge, senior division, pune in regular civil suit no. 481 of 1991; whereby the petitioner was held to be a person not belonging to nomadic tribe was confirmed. issue 2. the short question that arises for consideration under section 9 ofcivil procedure code, 1908 ('c.p.c:' for short) is as to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-09-2001
Reported in : 2002(2)ALLMR108; (2002)104BOMLR843
..... of the petitioner, to my mind, is wholly misconceived and the same is, therefore, rejected.6. coming to the correctness of the findings recorded by the two courts below on the issue of bona fide requirement, needless to mention that the ..... ., 1999. the appellate court has rightly discussed the ratio of the decisions to observe that provisions of order 6 rules 14 and 15 are merely procedural and such defects can be cured even at a latter stage of the proceedings. in this view of the matter, the first contention raised on behalf ..... hardship. the appellate court analysed the rival submissions and negatived both the pleas taken by the petitioner. in so far as the plea that, the plaint was not signed by the plaintiffs, the appellate court has taken the view that it was not open to the petitioner to raise that plea ..... signed by the plaintiff, but by his advocate. pursuant to this plea the plaintiffs took out application before the appellate court for permission to sign the plaint, which application was allowed on 27th september, 1999. it is relevant to note that the said application was contested by the petitioner. nonetheless, the appellate ..... has been passed by the two courts below on that count.3. with reference to the ground of bona fide requirement, the averments made in the plaint and more particularly in para 5(c) thereof states that the plaintiffs family consists of in all eight members (including five sons and one daughter). .....Tag this Judgment!