Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: supreme court of india Year: 2008 Page 1 of about 75 results (0.125 seconds)

Jan 04 2008 (SC)

Atul Singh and ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-04-2008

Reported in : AIR2008SC1016; 2008(1)ARBLR1(SC); 2008(1)AWC757(SC); 2008(56)BLJR778; 2008BusLR93(SC); 2008(2)CTC856; [2008(2)JCR39(SC)]; 2008(1)SCALE84; (2008)2SCC602; 2008(1)LC180(SC); 2008AIRSCW570; 2008(2)CivilLJ749; 2008(1)Supreme268; 2008(1)LH(SC)723; 2008(2)ICC142; 2008(2)KCCRSN83

..... . 2), who appeared before the trial court and moved an application for giving time to file written statement. he also moved an application for rejecting the plaint under order vii rule 11 cpc on 18.9.1998, which was rejected on 16.1.2002. a review petition seeking review of the aforesaid order was filed but the same was dismissed on 29.4.2004 ..... the order passed by the high court only says that 'the court below has committed error in passing the impugned order. accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this civil revision is allowed.' no specific order making reference to arbitration was passed.7. shri ranjit kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the main relief claimed in ..... to the facts of the case, the relief of declaration that the partnership deed is illegal or void or the relief of cancellation thereof can only be granted by the civil court and not by an arbitrator. in support of his submission shri. ranjit kumar has placed reliance on the following observations made in khardah co. ltd. v. raymon & co. (india ..... the plaintiff appellants to have the partnership deed dated 17.2.1992 declared as illegal, void and inoperative. the relief for such a declaration could only be granted by the civil court and not by an arbitrator as they or shri. rajendra prasad singh through whom the plaintiffs derive title, are not party to the said deed. the trial court had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2008 (SC)

Kamala and ors. Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-29-2008

Reported in : AIR2008SC3174; 2008(4)ALD24(SC); 2008(3)AWC2776(SC); (2008)5MLJ617(SC); 2008(7)SCALE436

..... 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 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure.29. reliance has been placed on tara pada ray v. shyama pada ray and ors. : air1952cal579 wherein the averments ..... not unnecessarily protract the hearing of a suit. having regard to the changes in the legislative policy as adumbrated by the amendments carried out in the code of civil procedure, the courts would interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid the court's resources being used up ..... s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted.2. application of order vii, rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure (for short 'the code') in the facts and circumstances of this case, is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated ..... undivided condition, the impugned order should not be interfered with.13. order vii, rule 11 of the code provides for rejection of plaint, clause (d) whereof specifies 'where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law'.14. the learned trial judge as also the high court proceeded to ..... .03.1963 and the appellate orders. the high court opined that the conclusion of the learned trial judge directing rejection of plaint was correct having regard to the provisions contained in section 12 of the code read with order ii, rule 2 thereof. it was held that no cause of action was disclosed in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 29 2008 (SC)

Puran Ram Vs. Bhaguram and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-29-2008

Reported in : AIR2008SC1906; 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)843; (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN145; 2008(2)CTC224; [2008(3)JCR26(SC)]; JT2008(4)SC37; 2008(4)KLT233(SC); 2008(4)MhLj1; (2008)4MLJ258(SC); 2008AIRSCW2265; 2008(4)SCC102; 2008(3)CivilLJ384; 2008; (3)ICC172; 2008(2)Supreme166; 2008(2)LH(SC)784

..... a part of the suit property was found to be a mutual mistake, the appellant filed an application for amendment of the plaint under order 6 rule 17 of the code of civil procedure on 20th of march, 1998 seeking to amend the plaint and give the description of the suit property as chak no. 3 slm instead of chak no. 3 ssm. initially, the ..... . we may now take into consideration as to whether the high court, in the exercise of its power under article 227 of the constitution, was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint, which, in the discretion of the trial court, was allowed. we are of the view that the high court ought not to have interfered with the order ..... correct a part of the description of the suit property in the agreement for sale as well as in the plaint, the court was not justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint and the agreement. further, by such amendment of the plaint, neither the nature and character of the suit would be changed nor the question of limitation could arise. according ..... performance of contract for sale to a suit for declaration which was not permissible;6. on the aforesaid findings, the high court, as noted herein earlier, had rejected the application for amendment of the plaint by passing the impugned judgment. the said order is now under challenge before us by way of a special leave petition in respect of which leave has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2008 (SC)

Kamlesh Babu and ors. Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-16-2008

Reported in : 2008(3)AWC2903(SC); [2008(4)JCR64(SC)]; JT2008(4)SC652; (2008)151PLR455; 2008(6)SCALE403; 2008(3)ICC500; 2008AIRSCW3241

..... apart from section 3(1) of the limitation act, even order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure casts a mandate upon the court to reject a plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, in this case by the law of limitation. further, as far ..... ors. 2006 (5) scc 658 wherein it had been held that a suit could not be dismissed under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure in the absence of proper pleadings relating to limitation, particularly when the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and on a ..... mere reading of the plaint the suit could not be held to be barred by limitation.12. a similar view was taken by this court in narne ..... this court in state of punjab v. darshan singh : air2003sc4179 wherein while considering the limits of the court's powers under section 152 of the civil procedure code, this court had occasion to consider whether a new plea in respect of which no specific issue had been framed could be raised in second appeal ..... respondent no. 1, who is one of the grand-sons of the testator through another son, shanti swarup, also filed an application for mutation, which was rejected. an appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed. on 29th april, 1977, the tehsildar passed an order for mutation of the properties in the name of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2008 (SC)

M.C. Agrawal Huf Vs. Sahara India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-28-2008

Reported in : AIR2008SC2887; 2008(6)ALD90(SC); 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)447; 2008(4)ALT15(SC); JT2008(6)SC239; (2009)153PLR650; 2008(6)SCALE778; (2008)5SCC642; 2008AIRSCW4763; 2008(3)LH(SC)1734

..... hearing of the appeal. 2. this appeal relates to rejection of an application for amendment of plaint filed at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant in a suit for eviction, mesne profit and for mandatory injunction. the suit was, however, decreed ex-parte and an application under order 9 rule 13 of the code of civil procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree was ..... rejected by the trial court as well as by the high ..... rental fetched by similar situated properties in the vicinity over the period mesne profits was being claimed. upon these observations, the prayer for amendment of the plaint was rejected. in our view, the amendment of the plaint sought for by the plaintiff/appellant was necessary in deciding the real controversy between the parties. it is always open by way of an amendment to ..... the objections filed by the respondent, we do not find any ground to refuse the prayer of the appellant to amend the plaint in the manner they have prayed for. while rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint, it was held by the high court that the amendment was not necessary nor germane to the controversy between the parties for the reason .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2008 (SC)

Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahamd and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-17-2008

Reported in : AIR2008SC1147; 2008(3)ALD1(SC); 2008(2)ALT21(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(2)CHN7; [2008(1)JCR192(SC)]; JT2008(1)SC564; 2008(5)MhLj82; (2008)3MLJ287(SC); 2008(I)OLR(SC)323; 2008AIRSCW1061; 2008(3)CivilLJ412; 2008(1)LH(SC)646; (2008)3SCC717

..... dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order passed by the trial court which, in turn, had rejected the appellant's petition under order 6, rule 17 of the code of civil procedure ('cpc' for short) for amendment of the suit property as described in the schedule to the plaint.3. the material facts are brief and simple. in the year 2002, the appellant filed a ..... the verge of conclusion as found by the high court and the trial court. that apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to order 6 rule 17 in the code of civil procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. as noted hereinbefore, parties ..... are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to order 6 rule 17 cpc which ..... plaintiff- appellant proceeded with the trial of the suit and did not take care to seek the amendment at an early stage. the trial court rejected the prayer for amendment and the high court dismissed the civil revision against the order of the trial court. allowing the prayer for amendment this court in paragraph 5 of the decision observed as follows :having .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 02 2008 (SC)

State Bank of India and ors. Vs. S.N. Goyal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-02-2008

Reported in : AIR2008SC2594; [2008(117)FLR967]; JT2008(6)SC398; (2008)IIILLJ567SC; 2008(7)SCALE415; (2008)8SCC92; 2009(1)SLJ403(SC); 2008AIRSCW4355; 2008LABIC3514; 2008AIRSCW4355; 2008LABIC3514; 2008-III-LLJ-567;

..... consultation with the chief vigilance officer when he filed the suit and therefore, could not make necessary averments in the plaint in that behalf. but that is no answer. code of civil procedure contains appropriate provisions relating to interrogatories, discovery and inspection (order xi rules 1, 12 and 15) to gain access ..... 27. the learned counsel for respondent submitted that as the order of removal was set aside and as the employer's second appeal was rejected, he should be permitted to support the decision of the courts below by demonstrating that the enquiry officer had violated the principles of natural justice ..... on 18.1.1995 and had become functus officio and therefore, he could not charge the said order dated 18.1.1995 is liable to be rejected. re : questions (iv) and (v) - whether the appointing authority was influenced by extraneous material. 22. a perusal of the letter dated ..... not involving substantial questions of law are not entertained, and at the same time ensure that cases involving substantial questions of law are not rejected, as not involving substantial questions of law.10. in this case, the failure on the part of the high court to take note ..... substantial question of law. (d) failing to consider and formulate relevant and appropriate substantial question/s of law involved in the second appeal.(e) rejecting second appeals on the ground that the case does not involve any substantial question of law, when the case in fact involves substantial questions of law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2008 (SC)

Syed Abdul Qadir and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-16-2008

Reported in : JT2009(1)SC385; 2009(1)SCALE36; (2009)3SCC475; 2009(3)SLJ38(SC)

..... fr.22-c, the pay fixation on promotion would still be governed by the said rule and not by the amended rule is bound to be rejected. having regard to the provisions of clause 13 of resolution dated 18.12.1989, we hold that pay fixation on promotion of the assistant teachers ..... fixation on promotion would be governed by fr.22-c and instructions issued by the central government from time to time and not as per the existing procedure. it may be mentioned here that department of personnel and training, government of india, vide its notification dated 30th august, 1989, published in the ..... iv) & (v) shall also be governed by those provisions.14. while sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of clause 13 lay down the procedure to be adopted for fixation of pay on promotion in respect of different classes of teachers mentioned in these sub-clauses, sub-clause (vii) provides that the pay fixation of ..... rule 17 of the 1983 rules provided that the pay scale of the teachers of the nationalised secondary schools would be determined as per bihar service code and rules issued by the state government from time to time. at that point of time, the time scale of these teachers was regulated under ..... that such an employee did not suffer unnecessary brunt of a cut in the salary.2. while civil appeal nos. 3351-54 and 3364 have been preferred by the aggrieved assistant teachers of the nationalised schools, civil appeal no. 3355 has been preferred by the bihar secondary teachers association.3. we now proceed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2008 (SC)

Abdul Gafur and anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-11-2008

Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3699(SC); [2008(4)JCR117(SC)]; (2008)7MLJ483(SC); (2009)153PLR490; 2008(11)SCALE263; (2008)10SCC97; 2008(2)LC1033(SC)

..... (jd), dehradun, restraining the hospital from raising construction of any nature in the said property. applications under order 39, rules 1 & 2 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for short 'the code') were also filed for grant of interim injunction.6. the suits were contested by the hospital. taking into consideration the written statement filed on behalf of the hospital and after ..... giving rise to a cause of action which can be entertained by a civil court, it may be rejected in terms of order 7, rule 11 of the code. similarly, a plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court has to be considered having regard to the contentions raised in the plaint. for the said purpose, averments disclosing cause of action and the reliefs ..... fact remains that the suit has to be disposed of either by the high court or by the courts subordinate to it in a meaningful manner as per the procedure prescribed in the code and not on one's own whims.18. in the instant case, as noted above, vide order dated 20th march, 2007, the high court transferred the two suits ..... court dismissed the suits on the aforenoted ground, namely, the issues raised in the suits were being examined in the writ petition. we have no hesitation in holding that the procedure adopted by the high court is unknown to law. we are conscious of the fact that the object of filing of the suits could be a dubious and indirect attempt .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2008 (SC)

Haryana Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-16-2008

Reported in : 2009(II)OLR(SC)57; 2008(10)SCALE276; 2008AIRSCW6500

..... that the dispute was in respect of the encroachment of the suit land. admittedly, in this case, an application was filed under order 26 rule 9 of the code of civil procedure which was rejected by the trial court but in view of the fact that it was a case of demarcation of the disputed land, it was appropriate for the court to direct ..... the investigation by appointing a local commissioner under order 26 rule 9 of the cpc. the appellate court found that the trial court did not take into consideration the pleadings ..... of the parties when there was no specific denial on the part of the respondents regarding the allegations of unauthorized possession in respect of the suit land by them as per paragraph 3 of the plaint. but the only controversy between ..... the parties was regarding demarcation of the suit land because land of the respondents was adjacent to the suit land and the application for demarcation filed before the trial court was wrongly rejected. it is also not in dispute that even before the appellate .....

Tag this Judgment!


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