Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: supreme court of india Year: 1969 Page 1 of about 20 results (0.095 seconds)

Mar 17 1969 (SC)

Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-17-1969

Reported in : AIR1969SC1267; (1969)1SCC869; [1970]1SCR22

..... partners of the firm with a defective description of themselves for the purpose of the cpc. in these circumstances, a civil court could permit, under the provisions of section 153 of the code (or possibly under o. vi. rule 17, about which we say nothing), an amendment of the plaint to enable a proper description of the plaintiffs to appear in it in order ..... describing the names of all the partners and striking out the name of the firm as a mere misdescription. the application for amendment was rejected on the view that the original plaint was no plaint in law and it was not a case of misnomer or misdescription, but a case of a non-existent firm or a non-existent person suing. in appeal ..... objection was raised by the defendant that the suit as filed was not maintainable. an application to amend the plaint, by substituting the names of the three members of the joint family for the name of the family firm as plaintiffs, was rejected by the court of first instance. in appeal the high court observed that a suit brought in the name ..... of a firm in a case not within o. 30 c.p. code being in fact a case of misdescription of existing persons, leave to amend ought .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 1969 (SC)

Ramchand (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Thakur Janki Ballabhji Ma ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-23-1969

Reported in : AIR1970SC532; (1969)2SCC313; [1970]1SCR630; 1969()WLN35

..... and it was not a suit filed by the relators. section 92 of the cpc had no application to the suit and the sanction of the advocate-general was not a condition of the initiation of the suit. the high court therefore rightly rejected the contention that the suit was not maintainable without the sanction of the advocate ..... dismissed the suit holding that the ruler of bharatpur was never the owner of the temple or of the articles mentioned in schedules a and b of the plaint, that the ruler was also not the founder of the temple nor its shebait; and that the ruler had never appointed any pujari of this temple and ..... maintainable. a similar view was also taken by the calcutta high court in shri mahadeo jew and anr. v. balkrishna vyas and anr. : air1952cal763 .10. the civil court has therefore jurisdiction to frame a scheme for management of the temple and its properties. the present is, in our judgment, a case in which in exercise of ..... of the state of rajasthan to look after the administration of the temple and to protect its properties from misappropriation. this is undoubtedly a private trust but the civil courts have jurisdiction to frame a scheme for the management of the temple which is not a public trust. the judicial committee of the privy council in ..... j.c. shah, ag. c.j.1. suit no. 41 of 1947 was filed in the court of the civil judge, mathura by the deity thakur janki ballabhji maharaj, acting through its manager-l. tulsiram, authorised agent of the bharatpur state, for a decree for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 1969 (SC)

The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Rajkumar Rukmini Raman Brahma

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-11-1969

Reported in : AIR1969SC1687; (1969)2SCC818; [1970]2SCR355

..... that the respondent was entitled to rehabilitation grant. the appellant preferred an appeal against the order of the rehabilitation grant officer. the appeal was heard by the additional civil judge, mirzapur, who rejected the objection of the appellant and dismissed the appeal. the appellant took the matter in revision to the allahabad high court, but the revision application was dismissed on ..... 23 of the act and the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case must be rejected.7. it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the case 'should be remanded to the rehabilitation grants officer on account of certain procedural irregularities. it was pointed out that the rehabilitation grants officer did not follow the provisions of the ..... civil procedure code by treating; the application under section 79 as a plaint and the objection of the state government as a written statement. it was said that the ..... rehabilitation grants officer was bound to frame proper issues and to take evidence of the parties on those issues as in the civil suit. but no case has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 1969 (SC)

Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-09-1969

Reported in : AIR1970SC1059; (1970)1SCC186; [1970]3SCR319

..... basis that the former suit was a suit for a declaration of the plaintiffs title to the lands mentioned in schedule i of the plaint. the requirement of order 2, rule 2, cpc is that every suit should include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of a cause of ..... and the trial court were right in their conclusions that the plaintiffs claim in respect of the lands mentioned in schedule i of the plaint is barred by order 2, rule 2, cpc.6. we are of the opinion that the trial court and the high court erred in holding that the plaintiff's suit in ..... respect of the lands mentioned in plaint schedule i is barred by order 2, rule 2, cpc. the suit instituted by the plaintiff in the court of subordinate district judge, bidar for a declaration that he is entitled to ..... the executing court dismissed his application holding that his remedy was by wav of a separate suit. a revision taken against that order to the high court was rejected. thereafter the plaintiff filed a suit in the court of subordinate district judge. bidar, for a declaration that he is entitled to be impleaded in the execution ..... of his title. the trial court dismissed his suit in respect of the lands mentioned in schedule i of the plaint on the ground that the relief in question is barred by order 2, rule 2, cpc. it decreed the suit for the possession of the lands mentioned in schedule ii except items 3 and 9. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1969 (SC)

Beohar Rajendra Sinha and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-1969

Reported in : AIR1969SC1256; 1970MhLJ195(SC); (1969)1SCC796; [1969]3SCR955

..... the persons bringing the suit in the present case and the argument of defendant no. 1 on this point must be rejected.4. the object of the notice under section 80, civil procedure c code is to give to the government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and ..... first question to be considered in these appeals is whether the high court was right in holding that the notice given under section 80 of the civil procedure code by the first plaintiff was effective only with regard to raghubir singh and the notice was ineffective with regard to the other plaintiffs and therefore raghubir ..... to institute a suit against the government on the cause of action and for the relief set out therein. one of the trustees died before the plaint was lodged in court, and two more trustees were appointed in the place of the deceased trustee. thereafter the two new trustees and the surviving trustee ..... the cause of action set out in the notice remained unchanged in the suit. it is also not said that the relief set out in the plaint is different from the relief set out in the notice. we are accordingly of the opinion that the notice given by the karta was sufficient ..... mentioned in the section; and (4) whether the suit is instituted after the expiration of two months next after notice has been served, and the plaint contains a statement that such a notice has been so delivered or left. in construing the notice the court cannot ignore the object of the legislature, viz .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1969 (SC)

Baldevdas Shivlal and anr. Vs. Filmistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-29-1969

Reported in : AIR1970SC406; (1970)0GLR8; (1970)GLR158(SC); (1969)2SCC201; [1970]1SCR435

..... of the evidence act.6. filmistan feeling dissatisfied with the order invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the high court of gujarat under section 115 of the cpc. the revision petition was entertained and elaborate arguments were advanced at the bar. the high court referred to a number of authorities and observed that ..... in order to show in what manner the language of the document was related to the existing facts, could not be excluded. the court also rejected the contention that there was any bar of estoppel, and held that evidence as to the true nature of the transaction was not inadmissible; by ..... the consent decree had not decided that the transaction between the parties of the year 1954 was in the nature of a lease; that in the plaint in the earlier suit it was not even averred that the rights granted were in the nature of leasehold rights; that suit no. 149 of ..... stage in deciding appeal the merits of the pleas raised by the defendants are not relevant. after issues were raised on june 20, 1966, the plaint was amended and additional written statements were filed by the defendants. the learned judge was then requested to frame three additional issues in view of the ..... : [1964]4scr409 that the expression 'case' is a word of comprehensive import: it includes a civil proceeding and is not restricted by anything contained in section 115 of the code to the entirety of the proceeding in a civil court. to interpret the expression 'case' as an entire proceeding only and not a part of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 1969 (SC)

Raja Bajrang Bahadur Singh Vs. Jai Narain

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-08-1969

Reported in : AIR1970SC30; (1969)2SCC114; [1970]1SCR231

..... a provision seriously hampered the administration of justice. in numerous cases under the oudh rent act, after a suit, application or appeal was rejected by a civil court or revenue court on the ground of want of jurisdiction, the court of the other description where the proceeding was subsequently filed came to ..... of jurisdiction, and its provisions should receive a liberal construction. section 289(2) applies whenever any suit, application or appeal having been rejected either by the civil court or revenue court on account of want of jurisdiction is subsequently filed in the court of the other description and the latter court ..... the record with a statement of the reasons for its doubt to the high court;(2) where any suit, application or appeal, having been rejected either by a civil court or by a revenue court on the ground of want of jurisdiction, is subsequently filed in a court of the other description, the ..... the pending appeals as also the suits had abated.2. in 1955 the respondent filed applications for restitution of the lands under section 144 of the cpc in court of the assistant collector, 1st class, pratapgarh. the appellant contested the application. one of the issues arising on the application was whether ..... collector;(4) on any such reference being made, the high court may order the court either to proceed with the case, or to return the plaint, application or appeal for presentation of such other court as it may declare to be competent to try the same;(5) the order of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 19 1969 (SC)

State of Bihar Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-19-1969

Reported in : AIR1970SC1446; (1970)1SCC67; [1970]2SCR522

..... g.k. mitter, j.1. this group of applications can be divided into two parts. the object of one group is to get the plaints in nine suits filed in this court rejected while that of the other group is to stay the hearing of the suits. the suits are all of the same pattern in each of which the state of bihar ..... this connection was that of the state of seraikella and ors. v. union of india and anr. : [1951]2scr474 where mahajan, j. expressed the view that section 80 of the cpc would not affect suits instituted in the federal court under section 204 of the government of india act.14. our attention was drawn to some provisions of the american constitution ..... state is the plaintiff in each case. in all suits of a similar nature which are filed in courts other than this court, a notice under section 80 of the cpc is an essential prerequisite. no such notice has been served in any of these cases. the applications were set down for trial of three issues sought to be raised by ..... the negative. it is not necessary to give any answer to issue no. 1 nor to issue no. 3. on the view we take the plaints must be returned for the purpose of presentation to courts having jurisdiction over the disputes. let the plaints be returned for presentation to the proper court after endorsing on them the date of presentation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1969 (SC)

Deo Chand and ors. Vs. Shiv Ram and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-07-1969

Reported in : 1970MPLJ371(SC); (1969)3SCC330

..... we referred were that: (1) that the learned single judge interfered in second appeal with findings of fact which he was not entitled to do under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, (2) that his decision that the receipts were admissible in evidence without registration was erroneous, and (3) that the transferees from the plaintiffs ought to have been joined in ..... high court was within his rights in re-considering the evidence and reaching a conclusion about the oral partition after throwing into the balance the evidence which had been improperly rejected in the court below.9. this brings us to the second point, namely, whether the receipts were admissible in evidence without registration. these receipts were executed not by the brothers ..... in that event be only asserting a jus tertii which they were not entitled to do.8. of these three points, the first hardly merits consideration. the learned district judge rejected the vital evidence in the case. once that position is admitted, it is quite clear that the finding of fact was assailable in second appeal, because the totality of the ..... not joined in the suit either as plaintiffs or as defendants.3. the plaintiffs claimed possession from the defendants of certain lands which they described in schedule a to the plaint. their case was that in the year 1939 negotiations for an oral partition commenced which were finalised in may 1942 and the final partition was orally completed. the suit lands .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1969 (SC)

Dewan Singh Vs. Champat Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-17-1969

Reported in : AIR1970SC967; (1969)3SCC447; [1970]2SCR903

..... on the basis of their personal knowledge.11. it was contended on behalf of the appellant that in exercise of its powers under section 115 of the cpc, the high court could not have corrected the erroneous interpretation placed by the appellate court as to the scope of the arbitration agreement. we have not thought ..... filing of the award into court had ever been given to the defendants. hence the objections taken by the defendants to the award could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation.7. now coming to the question of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators, that allegation is founded on the fact that ..... of the dispute could not have been referred to arbitration in view of the provisions of u.p. act 1 of 1951.3. in appeal the learned civil judge reversed the decree of the trial court. while agreeing with the trial court that the arbitrators had used their personal knowledge in deciding the disputes referred ..... make the award a rule of the court was brought by one of the parties to the arbitration agreement and not by any arbitrator. the plaint filed does not disclose that the award given had been produced along with it. there was some controversy as to whether that award was produced along with ..... the plaint. there is no need to go into that question as we shall presently see. it is not said that along with the plaint copy, a copy of the award had been sent to the defendants. nor is it said .....

Tag this Judgment!


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