Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: supreme court of india Year: 2007 Page 1 of about 63 results (0.116 seconds)

Oct 11 2007 (SC)

C. Natrajan Vs. Ashim Bai and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-11-2007

Reported in : AIR2008SC363; 2008(1)AWC339(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN11; JT2007(12)SC295; (2008)1MLJ1278(SC); RLW2008(2)SC1077; 2007(12)SCALE163; 2007AIRSCW6953

..... suit is filed beyond the period of 3 years as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners and, therefore, the plaint itself is liable to be rejected.6. order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure reads as under:11. rejection of plaint.--the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:(a) to (c) ...(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the ..... set aside but the conclusion arrived at by the high court is affirmed. we agree with the view taken by the trial court that a plaint cannot be rejected under order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure.12. in the said decision, it may be placed on record, on the question as to whether order vii rule 11(d) can be ..... arisen in 1994 when the defendants allegedly trespassed over the suit property. respondent on or about 8.8.2001 filed an application under order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure praying for rejection of the plaint on the premise that the suit was barred by limitation, inter alia, stating:2. i beg to submit that the respondent/plaintiff in the ..... plaint to be barred by any law;(e) to (f) ...7. an application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 2007 (SC)

Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hede and Company

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-15-2007

Reported in : 2007(4)ALD89(SC); 2007(5)ALT1(SC); JT2007(7)SC150; 2007(5)MhLj577; (2007)5MLJ187(SC); 2008MPLJ30(SC); 2007(II)OLR(SC)613; 2007(7)SCALE348; (2007)5SCC614; 2007AIRSCW3456

..... relief clause. in our view, the present plaint is liable to rejection, if not on the ground that it does not disclose 'cause of action', on the ground that from the averments in the plaint, the suit is apparently barred by law within the meaning of clause (d) of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.30. relying upon these decisions it was ..... the judgment were made in the suit.10. an application was filed on behalf of the respondent under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure submitting that there was absence of cause of action and also the plaint was barred by limitation. subsequently, the plea of absence of cause of action was given up and only the plea of bar of ..... and 139 of 2006 whereby the high court has affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing the suits filed by the appellants under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure holding that the suits are barred by limitation.3. the representative facts giving rise to these appeals are taken from the pleadings in suit filed by hardesh ores pvt ..... for injunction was made with a view to enforce the negative covenants contained in clauses 15 and 20 of the agreement.27. the respondent sought rejection of the plaint by filing application under order vii rule 11 cpc contending that the suit was barred by limitation on the face of it. it was contended before the high court as also before us that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2007 (SC)

Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-03-2007

Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)953; 2007(6)ALT3(SC); 2007(4)AWC4091(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN95; JT2007(11)SC472; (2008)1MLJ45(SC); (2008)149PLR326; RLW2008(1)SC776; 2007(11)SCALE549

..... summarily under order vii rule 11 cpc.7. on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that inasmuch as the trial court and the high court, on proper verification of the plaint averments and finding that there is no material for delay in filing the suit, rightly rejected the plaint and allowed the application prayed for ..... judgment dated 27.4.2006 passed by the high court of delhi in r.f.a. no. 188 of 2006. in the result, the civil appeal is allowed and the civil judge is directed to restore the suit to its original file and dispose of the same on merits preferably within a period of six months from ..... before the conclusion of the trial. for the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of order vii rule 11 of the code, the averments in the plaint are the germane: the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.12. in i.t.c. ltd. ..... illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under order x of the code. (see t. arivandandam v. t.v. satyapal and anr. : [1978]1scr742 ). 14. it is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered ..... , it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under order vii rule 11 of the code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of order vii rule 11 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2007 (SC)

Begum Sabiha Sultan Vs. Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-12-2007

Reported in : AIR2007SC1636; 2007(4)ALT55(SC); 2007(3)AWC2344(SC); JT2007(5)SC431; (2007)4MLJ1034(SC); RLW2007(4)SC2739; 2007(5)SCALE754; (2007)4SCC343

..... with the concerned court in the state of haryana and hence the plaint was liable to be rejected. on their behalf, the following averment in paragraph 3(d) of the plaint was emphasised.present suit is being confined to the properties situate ..... pleaded that the main relief sought in the plaint was for partition of the properties situate in gurgaon, not falling within the jurisdiction of delhi court and the declarations sought for are also related to the said properties and in the light of section 16(b)and (d) of the code of civil procedure (for short 'the code'), the jurisdiction to entertain the suit was ..... presented to the court having jurisdiction. an offer made to the plaintiff to pass an order in terms of rule 10a of order vii of the code was not accepted by the plaintiff. thus, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for being presented to the proper court.8. the plaintiff filed an appeal against the order before the division bench of ..... . there is no doubt that at the stage of consideration of the return of the plaint under order vii rule 10 of the code, what is to be looked into is the plaint and the averments therein. at the same time, it is also necessary to read the plaint in a meaningful manner to find out the real intention behind the suit. in moolji .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2007 (SC)

Prem Lala Nahata and anr. Vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-02-2007

Reported in : AIR2007SC1247; 2007(1)AWC772; 2007(5)BomCR220; (2007)3CALLT45(SC); 2007(3)CTC101; JT2007(3)SC69; 2007(1)KLT910(SC); (2007)2MLJ1177(SC); 2007(2)SCALE496; (2007)2SCC551; 2007AIRSCW1120; 2007LawHerald(SC)1263

..... no. 10 of 2003 on the original side of the calcutta high court invoking clause 13 of the letters patent read with section 24 of the code of civil procedure (for short 'the code') seeking withdrawal of money suit no. 585 of 2001 and money suit no. 69 of 2002 for being tried with c.s. no. 29 ..... and causes of action is a defect that can be waived and it is not such a one as to lead to the rejection of the plaint under order vii rule 11(d) of the code. as we see it, the said decision reflects the correct legal position. the decision in margo trading (supra) does not ..... of causes of action and hence the trial court was not justified in not invoking order vii rule 11(d) of the code and in not rejecting the plaint. the division bench, did not reject the plaint, but, gave the appellants an opportunity to elect to proceed with the present suit at the instance of one of them and ..... not only misjoinder of parties but there was also misjoinder of causes of action. it was on this basis that the prayer for rejection of the plaint under order vii rule 11(d) of the code was made. the appellants, the plaintiffs, resisted the application. they contended that the claim of the plaintiffs emanated from the dealings ..... avoid the misjoinder of causes of action or misjoinder of parties. but on the basis of such a defect, the plaint could not be rejected by invoking order vii rule 11(d) of the code since it could not be held that a suit which suffers from the defect either of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2007 (SC)

Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-01-2007

Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)806; 2007(2)CTLJ1(SC); JT2007(6)SC302; 2007(6)SCALE389; (2007)6SCC44

g.p. mathur, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal, by special leave, has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 5.9.2003 of a division bench of allahabad high court, by which the writ petition filed by the appellants was summarily dismissed at the admission stage.3. the appellants herein filed the writ petition before the high court under article 226 of the constitution praying for the following reliefs:(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned to allot the shops/godowns to the petitioners on hire purchase basis;(ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned not to interfere, in any manner, on the possession of the petitioners' shops and godowns allotted to them;(iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned not to compel the petitioners to enter into any agreement for taking shops/godowns allotted to them on rental basis.(iv) issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.the writ petition was filed on behalf of 143 firms and individuals carrying on business in agricultural produce and the respondents arrayed in the writ petition were (1) state of u.p. through director, krishi utpadan mandi parishad, lucknow; (2) krishi utpadan mandi samiti, pilibhit through its chairman; and (3) secretary, krishi utpadan mandi samiti, pilibhit.4. the case set up by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2007 (SC)

Commissioner of Customs, Maharashtra Vs. Galaxy Entertainment (i) P. L ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-08-2007

Reported in : 2007(3)BomCR798; 2007(118)ECC152; 2007LC152(SC); 2007(214)ELT14(SC); JT2007(6)SC558; 2007(6)SCALE678; (2007)4SCC652

..... of basant industries v. additional collector of customs : 1996(81)elt195(sc) . consequently, the appeal was allowed by the tribunal. hence, these civil appeals have been filed by the department.5. we do not find any merit in these civil appeals. in the present case, there were nine imports of the said equipment during the year 1997-98. one such import was ..... s.h. kapadia, j.1. a short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals filed by the department under section 130e of the customs act, 1962 against the decision of customs excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal ('the tribunal') dated 4.7.2002 ..... rule 5(1)(c) of the said rules.6. for the aforestated reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the tribunal dated 4.7.2002. accordingly the civil appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2007 (SC)

Laxman Prasad Vs. Prodigy Electronics Ltd. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-10-2007

Reported in : AIR2008SC685; 2008(1)ALT56(SC); 2008(1)AWC644(SC); (2008)1CALLT58(SC); (2008)1MLJ1055(SC); 2008(37)PTC209(SC); RLW2008(2)SC1293; 2007(14)SCALE65; (2008)1SCC618; 2007AIRSCW7801; 2008(2)CivilLJ414; 2008(1)LH(SC)288; 2008(3)KCCR1729; 2008(1)KCCRSN58;

..... jurisdiction of any court in india, has to be ascertained on the basis of the principles laid down in the code of civil procedure. since a part of 'cause of action' has arisen within the local limits of delhi as averred in the plaint by the plaintiff company, the question has to be considered on the basis of such averment. since it is alleged ..... , 2005. the defendant also filed an application under order vii, rules 10 and 11 of the code praying for rejection/return of plaint for presentation to proper court. it was contended by the defendant that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was liable to be rejected. it was further stated that no requisite court fee had been paid within the time granted by ..... the court and on that ground also, the plaint deserved to be rejected. it was also asserted that there was an agreement between the plaintiff-company and the defendant by which exclusive jurisdiction was granted to courts in hong kong and jurisdiction of ..... a cause of action as also territorial jurisdiction of the court, the high court rightly rejected both the contentions and no error was committed by it in not rejecting plaint, nor returning it for presentation to proper court. 'applicability of hong kong law', 'entering into an agreement in hong kong' or 'defendant residing in ghaziabad (uttar pradesh)' or any of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2007 (SC)

Mohannakumaran Nair Vs. Vijayakumaran Nair

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-11-2007

Reported in : AIR2008SC213; 2008(1)AWC335(SC); I(2008)BC203; (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN76; 2008(1)CTC74; (2008)1MLJ1334(SC); 2007(12)SCALE130

..... at the material time, had been residing in saudi arabia. 17. the material date for the purpose invoking section 20 of the code of civil procedure is the one of institution of the suit and not the subsequent change of residence. change of residence subsequent to decision of the ..... submission has been filed supporting the impugned judgment. 5. the court undoubtedly, exercises a discretionary jurisdiction in terms of section 115 of the code of civil procedure. discretion, however, as is well known must be exercised in accordance with law and not de-hors the same. see reliance airport developers ..... rejected. issue no. 1 is thus found in favour of the plaintiff.3. appellant filed a civil revision there against before the high court of kerala which was marked as crp no. 820 of 2005. by reason of the impugned judgment, a learned single judge of the said court relying or on the basis of section 20(c) of the code of civil procedure ..... is no serious dispute raised about liability or the execution of the promissory note. there is also no serious contention that if the plaint were returned accepting the plea regarding jurisdiction, it has to be represented to the same court as by then the petitioner had started ..... defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. from the address given in the plaint and from the averments in the plaint it can be seen that defendant is a resident of kadinamkulam village which is within the jurisdiction of this court. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2007 (SC)

Pothula Rama Rao Vs. Pendyala Venakata Krishna Rao and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-02-2007

Reported in : AIR2007SC2924; 2007(6)ALD30(SC); 2007(4)AWC3715(SC); JT2007(10)SC147; 2007(4)KLT307(SC); 2007(10)SCALE33

..... be such facts as would afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and would constitute the cause of action as understood in the code of civil procedure, 1908. the expression 'cause of action' has been compendiously defined to mean every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, ..... determination is whether the high court had jurisdiction to strike out pleadings under order vi rule 16 of the cpc and to reject the election petition under order vii rule 11 of the code at the preliminary stage even though no written statement had been filed by the respondent....on a combined reading ..... the duty of the court to examine the petition irrespective of any written statement or denial and reject the petition if it does not disclose a cause of action. to enable a court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at ..... the plaint and nothing else. courts have always frowned upon vague pleadings which leave a wide scope to adduce ..... any evidence. no amount of evidence can cure basic defect in the pleadings.we will examine the correctness of the decision of the high court, keeping the said principles in view. 5. the first ground relates to the rejection .....

Tag this Judgment!


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