Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: uttaranchal Page 1 of about 37 results (0.080 seconds)

May 05 2009 (HC)

Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammed Khan Vs. Metropole Hostels Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : AIR2010Utr7

..... under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, order dated 19-11-2008 passed by the learned civil judge (senior division), nainital is under challenge. vide the said impugned order, the learned court below partly allowed and partly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under order 7, rule 11, cpc in which the petitioner had prayed for the rejection of the plaint. the learned court below ..... . rejection of plaint - the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;.(d) where the suit appeal's from ..... impugned order, stated at the bar that the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under order 7, rule 11, cpc prayed for the rejection of the plaint only on the grounds contained in clauses (a) and (d) of rule 11. extract of order 7, rule 11, cpc in so far as clauses (a) and (d) are concerned is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus:11 ..... also.3. in so far as the issue relating to the maintainability of the suit qua defendant no. 1 is concerned, the learned court below rejected order 7, rule 11 application on the ground that the plaint did disclose cause of action and that the suit was not barred under any law for the time being in force.4. mr. neeraj gupta .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2006 (HC)

UdasIn Panchayati Bara Akhara Kankhal and ors. Vs. Mahant Dooj Dass (D ...

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2358

..... before the objections raised, the trial court detects it on the basis of the plaint allegations that the suit is barred by time or for the lack of jurisdiction, it can reject the plaint under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908.29. before concluding the judgment, this court feels it necessary to mention ..... of order i of the code of civil procedure, 1908, which reads as under:13. objections as to non-joinder or misjoinder.-all objections on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties ..... . in reply to this, on behalf of the plaintiff/ respondent, my attention was drawn to provisions contained in rule 13 of order i of the code of civil procedure, 1908. and it is contended that the objection as to the non-joinder of the parties, stands waived. i would like to quote rule 13 ..... the court or authority mentioned in column no. 5 thereof.(4) a second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified in section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (v of 1908) from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under sub-section (3), to the authority, if any, mentioned ..... allahabad high court at the time of admission of the appeal in the year 1977. it is pertinent to mention here that section 100 of the code of civil procedure 1908, was amended w.e.f 1.2.1977, and the memo of the appeal presented in november, 1977, does not contain suggested substantial questions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2005 (HC)

Suneel Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Punjab and Sindh Bank

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : AIR2006Utr26; I(2007)BC353

..... interest after the period of pendency of suit till the recovery is made. the trial court did not find any reason to reject the plaint under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. further it did not find anything to show if the officers of the plaintiff/bank got signed blank forms in respect of ..... 5% on the amount due for the period of pendency of suit and for future?3. whether plaintiff is liable to be rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for want of not being instituted by the competent persons?4. whether the officers of the plaintiff/ bank got signed blank forms ..... same rate of interest for the period from the date of decree till the date of payment. however, there is proviso to section 34 of code of civil procedure, which provides that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged has arisen out of the commercial transaction, the rate of such further ..... the suit. however, trial court has decreed only 6% interest per annum on aforesaid amount after the date of the institution. section 34 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, empowers the court to order interest in a suit for decree for payment of money at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be ..... for non-joinder of necessary parties. it also held that defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5, stood guarantors for the loan in question. it also rejected the counter-claim of the defendants. as to the plea that the recovery can be made by the plaintiff/bank from the insurance company, learned trial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2003 (HC)

Mohan Chandra Tewari Vs. Harish Chandra Bhandari and Etc.

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : AIR2003Utr10

..... in 1986 (supp) scc 315 : (air 1986 sc 1253) that, 'learned counsel for the petitioner has. next, argued that in any event the powers to reject an election petition summarily under the provisions of the code of civil procedure should not be exercised at the threshold. in substance, the argument is that the court must proceed with the trial, record the evidence and only ..... . c., he may cure the defect or he may file an appeal under section 96 of the c. p. c. as the order of rejecting the plaint is a decree under sub-section (2) of section 2 of the civil procedure code. therefore, the objection under order 7, rule 11, c. p. c. can be raised at any stage be fore conclusion of the trial ..... provisions of rule 9'. 10. rule 12 provides procedure on rejecting the plaint which reads as under :--'where a plaint is rejected the judge shall record an order to that effect with the reasons for such order.'rule 13 provides for rejection of plaint does not preclude fresh presentation of the plaint which reads as under :--'the rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not ..... matter of the suit is immovable property. rule 4 provides particulars to be contained when the plaintiffs sues as representative. rule 5 provides the particulars to be contained in the plaint where the defendant's interest and liability is shown. rule 6 provides the grounds of exemption from limitation law. rule-7 provides that the relief should be specifically stated, rule .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 2004 (HC)

Madan Mohan Kaushik and ors. Vs. Om Prakash Ahuja and ors.

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : 2005(1)AWC288(UHC)

..... the plaintiffs/petitioners under order xxxix, rule 2a of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity hereinafter 'the code'), complaining the disobedience of the temporary injunction. it appears that after hearing the parties, learned trial court rejected the same on 28th of march, 2001. meanwhile, on 24th of december, 1999, the plaint had already been rejected by the trial court for non-compliance of directions as ..... to valuation and court fee. aggrieved by the order dated 28.3.2001 passed on application under order xxxix, rule 2a of the code, plaintiffs/petitioners preferred a misc. civil appeal no. 34 of 2001 before the learned addl. district ..... and submitted that as on 28th march, 2001 when the misc. case no. 130 of 1998, moved under order xxxix, rule 2a of the code was dismissed, the plaint of the original suit had already been rejected, as such the temporary injunction was not in operation. therefore, no order either for attachment or for arrest could have been issued under order xxxix ..... , rule 2a of the code, as the respondents were no more required to comply with the interim order which was not existent on that date. this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2004 (HC)

Chief Engineer Central Zone Telecommunication Civil and ors. Vs. Dayal ...

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : AIR2005Utr34; 2005(2)ARBLR520(Uttaranchal)

..... sc 952, disputes covered under clause 2 of the agreement were not arbitrable. as such, the plaintiffs after giving a notice under section 80 of code of civil procedure, 1908, instituted the suit in question on 29-8-1995.3. the suit was contested by the defendants and a preliminary objection was raised by ..... of law laid down in bhawan vaja v. solanki hanuji khodaji mansang, air 1972 sc 1371. and argued that the executing court has rightly rejected objections raised by decree holder-defendants, as it is settled principle of law that executing court cannot go behind the decree under execution. as far ..... awarding the contract, de-lay in execution of work and determination of compensation for delay were admitted and rest of the allegations of the plaint as pleaded were denied. in view of the delay of 491 days in completion of the work the amount of compensation for delay was very ..... started. when the construction work started, it got hindered due to the cable line passing through the site. it was further pleaded in the plaint that electrification of the building was not included in the scope of work of the plaintiffs. as such the internal plastering could not be completed ..... (defendant/judgment debtor) for construction of inspection quarters being constructed between a period from 6-12-1989 to 5-5-1991. as per the plaint allegations, plaintiffs were obliged to start the execution of the work only after pre-requisite conditions contained in the agreement between the parties are fulfilled .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2003 (HC)

Virendra Kumar Pal and anr. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and ors.

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : AIR2005Utr30

..... along with the suit the petitioner has also filed an application under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 cpc. the trial court vide its order dated 1-7-2000 has rejected the application (paper no. 5ga/2). the learned civil judge (senior division), haridwar has come to the conclusion that the land in dispute having been acquired ..... suit is not legally maintainable. the land in question is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired. there is a reference in the plaint as well as in the counter affidavit that virendra kumar and others have filed a writ petition no. 1903/2001. paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit ..... in paragraph 9 of the plaint that a writ petition no. 1869 of 1999 has also been preferred by sri virendra kumar and ors. v. state of u. p. for quashing ..... the petitioner praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from making any construction or changing the nature of the property.4. according to the plaint averments the land in dispute was acquired by the state of u. p. for the purpose of bharat heavy electricals ltd. the petitioner has stated ..... in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the land is lying vacant and, as such, the plaintiff/petitioner has every right to take the possession of the land. it was also stated .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 2007 (HC)

Dwarka Trading Corpn. Vs. Cheema Paper Mills (P) Ltd.

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : AIR2007Utr83

..... the plaintiff is decided the proceedings of the present suit no. 37 of 1997 may remain stayed12. the civil judge has rejected the application and. hence present revision has been filed. section 10 of the code of civil procedure reads as under:10. stay of suit.- no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit ..... paid, present suit has been filed.8. paragraph 5 of the plaint is quoted below:(vernacular matter omitted....ed.)9. so far as cause of action is concerned, paragraph 9 is quoted below:(vernacular matter omitted....ed.)10 ..... . 37 of 1997, the plaintiff has claimed himself to be the industrial unit situated at bazpur, district udham singh nagar. in paragraph 5 of the plaint, it has been stated that on the order placed by the defendant company, the supply was made by the plaintiff company and the amount having not been ..... kumar about the bad quality of papers, when he sought to receive the payment of the invoice. paragraph 8 of the plaint is quoted below:8. that vide invoice no. 9 dated 6-4-1992 paper weighing 4397 kilogram was supplied to m/s. vindhyavasini corrugator (p) ..... lite and future interest.4. in another suit (suit no. 540 of 1996), the plaintiff ravindra kumar agarwal has claimed in paragraph 8 of the plaint that vide invoice no. 9/6 april, 1992 paper weighing 437 kg. was supplied to various firms and the consumers have complained to the plaintiff ravindra .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 2012 (HC)

Sardar Abdul Wahid Khan Vs. District Judge Dehradun and Others

Court : Uttaranchal

..... section 83 (5) of the wakf act, 1995 the tribunal has all powers of the civil court under the code of civil procedure, and hence it has also powers under order 39 rules 1,2 and 2a of the code of civil procedure to grant temporary injunctions and enforce such injunctions. hence, a full-fledged remedy is available to ..... , religious or charitable so as to include the waqf-al-al-aulad in the definition of waqf. while considering the rejection of the plaint under order vii rule 11 of the code only the plaint allegations are to be seen. in the absence of any such allegations, it cannot be said that suit property is ..... or under this act to be determined by a tribunal. thus, the petitioners application/misc. case was liable to be rejected on this count alone, being barred by jurisdiction by the civil court. learned counsel for the respondent no.4 relied on the judgment of honble the apex court in the matter of ..... acceptable. similarly, his argument that the waqf in question is out of the ambit of the act, is also rejected. section 85 of the waqf act, 1985 totally bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property. in my view, ..... waqf property covered under the definition of waqf act and as such, mischief of section 85 of the act will not come into play and plaint is not liable to be rejected .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2013 (HC)

Ravindra Brahmchari Disciple Hans Raj Ji Maharaj Vs. Sachha Vaidic San ...

Court : Uttaranchal

prafulla c. pant, j. (1) heard. (2) this revision is directed against the order dated 18.08.2012, passed by civil judge (junior division) narendra nagar, tehri garhwal, in original suit no. 21 of 2011, whereby said court has rejected the application 44c moved by the defendant under section 151 of code of civil procedure, 1908. (3) briefly stated the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of ??will ? dated 30.08.2010 on the ground that the same was fraudulently obtained. (4) contention of learned counsel for the defendant is that a suit is cognizable by the revenue court, and as such, the same is not maintainable before the civil court. on that ground, the application 44c was moved by the defendant, seeking direction from the trial court, to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. (5) learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist failed to show that the revenue court has any power to cancel a document on the ground of alleged fraud. it is not a case of a non est or void document, rather it is a case of cancellation of voidable document, in respect of which the suit before the civil court can be maintained. (6) in the above circumstances, this court finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. accordingly, the revision is dismissed summarily. (stay application no. 11067 of 2012 also stands dismissed).

Tag this Judgment!


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