Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: supreme court of india Page 1 of about 2,041 results (0.125 seconds)

Sep 19 2001 (SC)

Union of India Vs. Suresh J. Thanawala and ors. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2001(7)SC668; 2001(6)SCALE401; (2001)8SCC185; 2002(1)LC43(SC)

..... an order dated 17th january, 2000 has been dismissed. by the order dated 17th january, 2000 the court has, exercising powers under order vii rule 11 (d) of the code of civil procedure, rejected the plaint is being barred by limitation.4. briefly stated the facts are as follows:the subject matter of the suit involves large areas of land situated in and around mumbai ..... . respondents/defendants filed notice of motion no. 399 of 1999 praying for rejection of the plaint filed under order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. this prayer was based upon section 20 of the maharashtra land revenue code which, inter alia, provides as follows:20 ... (4) any suit in any civil court after the expiration of one year from the date of any ..... . the collector of mumbai purporting to act under section 20 of the maharashtra land revenue code passed an order dated 22nd june, 1995 holding that the lands in question belong ..... rejected by the order dated 17th january, 2000. the appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. 8. undoubtedly, in the plaint, the appellants have prayed for condonation of delay of the period of limitation as prescribed under section 20 of the maharashtra land revenue code. however, the learned solicitor general submitted that the main relief is for a declaration that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2003 (SC)

Liverpool and London S.P. and I Asson. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2003(9)SC218; 2003(10)SCALE1; (2004)9SCC512

..... court in prahladrai agarwalla and ors. v. smt. renuka pal and ors. : air1982cal259 wherein it has been held that an order under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure refusing to reject a plaint is not a judgment, is not apposite.122. in the said judgment, however, the judgment of this court in shah babulal khimji (supra) was not taken into consideration ..... in discharge of the undertaking of security given by the second respondent. the 1st respondent thereafter took out a notice of motion for rejection of the plaint purported to be under order 7 rule 11(a) of the code of civil procedure inter alia on the ground that the averments contained therein do not disclose a cause of action as the claim of unpaid insurance ..... by this court.135. it is trite that a party should not be unnecessarily harassed in a suit. an order refusing to reject a plaint will finally determine his right in terms of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.136. the idea underlying order 7 rule 11a is that when no cause of action is disclosed, the courts will not unnecessarily ..... 11 of the code of civil procedure, the rights conferred upon the parties are determined one way or the other, stricto sensu it would not be an interlocutory order but having regard to its traits and trappings would be a preliminary judgment.132. it is true that in shah babulal khimji (supra) it is stated that an order rejecting the plaint would be appealable but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2012 (SC)

A. Nawab John and ors. Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... statement and also filed application in i.a.no.3 of 2006, invoking order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint. a week thereafter, on 29 12 2005, the plaintiffs filed i.a.no.1 of 2006, seeking amendment of the plaint.9. i.a.no.1 of 2006 filed by the plaintiffs was allowed by an order dated 16 ..... " as if the court fee had been paid in the first instance. indisputably, the expression "document" appearing under section 4 and 5 takes within its sweep a plaint contemplated under the code of civil procedure (hereinafter 'the code' for short).it may be pertinent to mention that under section 28[1] of the court fees act 1870, it is categorically declared that "no document which ..... is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the state.how by an order relating to the adequacy of the court fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. again, the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the high court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure is strictly conditioned by ..... on which the abovementioned ias were allowed) because of the amendment to the civil courts act;2. the plaintiffs did not invoke section 149 of the code, while seeking the condonation of delay in representing the plaint and making good the deficit court fee, therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected;3. the delay in representation was condoned without notice to the defendant. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2001 (SC)

Raj NaraIn SarIn (Dead) Through Lrs. and ors. Vs. Laxmi Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (2002)10SCC501

..... , is set out below: 11. rejection of plaint.the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the ..... . leave granted. 2. in an application under order 7 rule 11, read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint, learned additional district judge, agra, by his order dated 23-10-1992, rejected the plaint. learned judge in coming to such a conclusion of rejection did place strong reliance on a decision of this court in the case of t. arivandandam v. t ..... exercise its power under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled since bogus litigation ought to be shot down at the earliest stage. incidentally, order 7 rule 11 as engrafted in the code of civil procedure envisages four specific cases for rejection of the plaint. order 7 rule 11, for the sake of convenience .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1997 (SC)

i.T.C. Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1998SC634; [1998]92CompCas1(SC); 1997(3)CTC746; JT1997(10)SC334; (1998)IIMLJ79(SC); 1997(7)SCALE767; (1998)2SCC70; [1997]Supp6SCR683

..... for the respondent bank contended that the case before us which is concerned with an application under order 7 rule 11(a) cpc for rejecting a plaint on the basis of 'absence of cause of action from a reading of the plaint' was identical with the sztejn case and hence what megarry, j. stated in discount records ltd. directly applies.26. it is true ..... 2nd respondent is the debt recovery tribunal. after the suit was filed in the civil court it was transferred to the debt recovery tribunal on 9.10.1995. before the said tribunal the appellant filed an application under order 7 rule 11 of the civil procedure code for rejecting the plaint so far as the appellant was concerned on the ground that no valid cause of ..... refer to any other material for the purpose of deciding whether there was any cause of action against the appellant.12. the first point here is whether the power to reject the plaint under order 7 rule 13 c.p.c. can be exercised even after the training of issues, and when the matter is posted for evidence. this point has arisen ..... action had been shown against the appellant. the said application was rejected by the tribunal on 12.12.1996 holding as follows :'objections filed. heard. cause of action .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2018 (SC)

Chotanben Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... (h.k.) ltd. and ors. (supra), which has restated the settled legal position about the scope of power of the court to reject the plaint under order vii rule 11(d) of cpc. 18 16. in the present case, we find that the appellants (plaintiffs) have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting ..... cpc filed by respondent no.1 (defendant no.5) and reversed the decision of the trial court on ..... respondent no.1 carried the matter before the high court by way of a civil revision application no.76/2016 against the order passed by the trial court dismissing his application under order vii rule 11(d) of cpc for rejection of 10 the plaint. the high court allowed the application under order vii rule 11(d) of ..... as the suit. 5. after filing of the suit, an application was filed on 19th november, 2014 under orders xiii and xvi of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for short cpc ) read with sections 67 and 71 of the evidence act for directions to defendant nos.3 to 6 to produce before the court, the original ..... in saleem bhai v. state of maharashtra, in which, while considering order 7 rule 11 of the code, it was held as under: (scc p. 560, para9) into 9. a perusal of order 7 rule 11 cpc makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked for deciding an application thereunder are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2017 (SC)

Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... sale deed.5. during the pendency of suit, an application was filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 5 including the appellant herein under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as cpc ) for rejection of plaint. the said application was allowed by the wakf tribunal on 8th march, 2016. on revision by the plaintiff, the order of ..... rejection of plaint passed by the wakf tribunal is set aside by the high court.6. learned counsel for the appellant taking us through the impugned judgment of the high court submitted that ..... court should exercise power under order vii rule 11, cpc. since the power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under order vii rule 11 of cpc to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. the averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out ..... show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under order vii rule 11 of cpc can be exercised. if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1996 (SC)

State of Orissa and Orissa Mining Corporation Vs. Klockner and Company ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : [1996]87CompCas644a(SC)

..... clause giving overriding effect to the provision contained therein and making it prevail over anything to the contrary contained in the arbitration act, 1940 or the code of civil procedure, 1908. secondly, unlike section 34 of the arbitration act which confers a discretion upon the court; the section uses the mandatory expression 'shall' and ..... analysis and discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, it is my considered view that the order passed by the learned trial judge rejecting the plaint under order 7, rule 11(a) and (d) of cpc is unsustainable and has to be set aside. accordingly the appeal is allowed and the order dated 26.3.1994 of ..... any matter agreed to be referred to arbitration in the agreement. except filing an application under order 7 rule 11 cpc for rejection of the plaint in the suit filed by omc, the first respondent has not taken any step in the legal proceedings and that application for ..... of the learned subordinate judge, bhubaneswar dated 26.3.94, by which the learned subordinate judge accepting an application filed under order 7 rule 11 cpc rejected the plaint in title suit no. 231/92 filed by the first respondent in special leave petition. the learned single judge of the high court while reversing ..... agreement of 20.4.82 the plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit seeking any of the reliefs stated in the plaint.10. coming to the question whether the plaint is to be rejected under clause (d) of rule 11 of order 7, the supreme court in the case of orient transport co. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1996 (SC)

State of Orissa Vs. Klockner and Company and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)659; AIR1996SC2140; 1996(1)ARBLR591(SC); [1996]87CompCas644(SC); JT1996(4)SC254; 1996(3)SCALE527; (1996)8SCC377; [1996]Supp1SCR368

..... clause giving overriding effect to the provision contained therein and making it prevail over anything to the contrary contained in the arbitration act, 1940 or the code of civil procedure, 1908. secondly, unlike section 34 of the arbitration act which confers a discretion upon the court; the section uses the mandatory expression 'shall' and ..... analysis and discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, it is my considered view that the order passed by the learned trial judge rejecting the plaint under order 7, rule 11(a) and (d) of cpc. is unsustainable and has to be set aside. accordingly the appeal is allowed and the order dated 26.3.1994 ..... any matter agreed to be referred to arbitration in the agreement. except filing an application under order 7 rule 11 cpc for rejection of the plaint in the suit filed by omc, the first respondent has not taken any step in the legal proceedings and that application for ..... of the learned subordinate judge, bhubaneswar dated 26.3.94, by which the learned subordinate judge accepting an application filed under order 7 rule 11 cpc., rejected the plaint in title suit no. 231/92 filed by the first respondent in special leave petition. the learned single judge of the high court while reversing ..... agreement of 20.4.82 the plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit seeking any of the reliefs stated in the plaint.10. coming to the question whether the plaint is to be rejected under clause (d) of rule 11 of order 7, the supreme court in the case of orient transport co. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2009 (SC)

Dwarika Prasad Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Khandelwal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2010(1)ALT49(SC); 2010(1)AWC757(SC); JT2009(15)SC369; 2009(14)SCALE662

..... the order dated july 23, 2007, passed by the learned ivth additional district judge, gwalior in civil suit no. 35-a of 2006 rejecting the application filed by the appellant under section 10 of the code of civil procedure to stay the suit, is confirmed.3. the relevant facts, which emerge from the record of ..... prayed to stay the same but, after considering the submissions and averments made in the plaint, the application filed under order 7 rule 11 cpc was dismissed. while rejecting the application filed under order 7 rule 11 cpc, it was noticed by the trial court that the suit filed earlier was at the ..... the suit property.5. the appellant filed an application under order 7 rule 11 cpc and requested the court to reject the plaint as, according to him, it did not disclose any cause of action. the said application was rejected by the trial court on july 12, 2006 and, therefore, the appellant had ..... the learned additional district judge, gwalior, wherein it was held that the will propounded by the appellant was forged one. what is claimed in the plaint is that the appellant and original defendants nos. 2 and 3 transferred the suit property to the original defendant no. 4, which is illegal. under ..... , the appellant and shankar lal in revenue records, as far as the suit property is concerned. the respondent no. 1 has mentioned in the plaint that the appellant clandestinely got removed the name of the plaintiff and shankar lal from the revenue records vide order dated january 14, 2004 and when .....

Tag this Judgment!


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