Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Page 9 of about 33,197 results (0.156 seconds)

Oct 23 2002 (HC)

G. Murugan and ors. Vs. Manickam

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2003Mad129

..... case of nesammal v. edward, , wherein, the learned judge of. this court (s. s. subramani, j.), has held that since the order, rejecting the plaint, is a decree under the code of civil procedure, revision is not maintainable. even if the plaint is rejected on some other grounds not covered by order 7, rule 11 of c.p.c., the remedy is only an appeal under section ..... 96 of code of civil procedure. that is the law declared by this court in the case of r. shanmughavelu pillai v. r. karuppannan ambalam, air 1976 ..... not a decree and therefore, revision would lie. on the contrary, the learned advocate for the respondent would submit that the order, rejecting the plaint, is only a decree and only an appeal would he, under s. 96 of cpc.16. both the learned advocates for the petitioners and the respondent relied upon few decisions to support their contentions, which would be referred ..... lie and not a revision and that therefore, the crp is not maintainable.12. the points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition are :--i. whether the order, rejecting the plaint, is a decree or order and if so, whether the civil revision petition is maintainable?ii. whether the suit, filed by the minors, questioning the validity of the sale deed beyond three .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2010 (HC)

Punjab National Bank Thr. Its Branch Manager Vs. Shaikh Jumman Shaikh ...

Court : Mumbai

..... act. anyway the suit as framed is barred by law as contemplated under order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure and hence the plaint is liable to be rejected. the trial court was right in its view.14. mr. deopujari, the learned counsel for the respondent, relied upon ..... written statement is filed, raising such objection. now, it is well settled that the application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. the law laid down by the apex court in its judgment in hari shankar ..... it, if it does not disclose cause of action under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. apart from this, the effect of section 9a of the code of civil procedure regarding framing of preliminary issue has also not been considered ..... bank in respect of the aforesaid property, is fraudulent.3. the applicant/defendant filed an application under order ix rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for dismissal of the suit, for want of jurisdiction. according to the appellant/defendant, the plaintiff has no right to claim relief of ..... jain v. sonia gandhi : (2001) 8 scc 233; clearly states that the court is duty bound to examine the case, regardless of written statement or denial in one form or the other and to reject .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2005 (HC)

Sanat Kumar Mullick Vs. Octavious Tea and Industries Ltd. and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 2006(2)CHN280

..... have been made proforma defendants. 4. after entering appearance in the suit, the defendant no. 1 filed an application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure thereby praying for rejection of the plaint on the allegation that although the suit is based on the allegation that the lease of the property had been determined for breach of express condition, yet ..... appeal. 7. mr. banerjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended before us that while rejecting the plaint under the provision of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, the learned trial judge adopted a procedure not permissible in law. mr. banerjee contends that the learned trial judge while arriving at his finding that there was no ..... against the order no. 86 dated 4th september, 2004 passed by the learned judge, 7th bench, city civil court at calcutta in title suit no. 1580 of 1996 thereby allowing an application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure by rejecting the plaint. 2. the plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit thereby praying for recovery of khas possession of the suit ..... premises as described in schedule of the plaint on the basis of a registered deed of lease dated 5th march, 1985 executed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2010 (HC)

Golok Lall Seal. Vs. Dsk Real Estate Limited and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... court at alipore, in title suit no. 1673 of 2009 by which the application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint filed by the defendant no.2 was rejected by the learned trial judge. the said defendant is aggrieved. hence he has come before this court with this application. 2 ..... the case where the defendant no.2 prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law. as such the court is ..... one of the reliefs which was claimed by the plaintiff cannot be granted for any reason whatsoever, the plaint as a whole, cannot be rejected under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure particularly when the sufficient cause of action has been made out in the said suit in support of ..... of the code of civil procedure, the court is required to consider the pleadings made out by the plaintiff in the plaint alone and if on such consideration, the court finds that any of the conditions as mentioned in order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure is attracted, the plaint can be rejected. here is ..... cause of action has been made out by the plaintiff against all the defendants for the reliefs claimed in the said suit, this court cannot reject the plaint by holding that the suit is vexatious, so far as the non-contracting defendants are concerned. 16. under such circumstance, this court holds .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2011 (HC)

P.Singaravel Vs. Ammani Ammal and anr.

Court : Chennai

..... the petitioner are relating to the deficit court-fee not paid on the plaint and therefore, it can be a ground for rejecting the plaint under order 7, rule 11 of code of civil procedure, in the absence of an application filed under section 149 of code of civil procedure. 21. on the other hand, the rejection of the memorandum of appeal cannot be made on the same grounds available ..... under order 7, rule 11 of code of civil procedure. in fact, there is a provision enabling ..... a proviso to section 4 of the tamil nadu court-fees and suits valuation act, 1955. the word 'document' employed in section 149 of code of civil procedure would include plaint also. whenever a plaint is received, the same shall be verified and if found to be not in order, the same shall be returned at least on the third day (excluding the date of ..... lw 866 : 1970(1) mlj 234, i am of the considered view that the first appellate court has rightly rejected the application filed by the revision petitioner and therefore, it is not proper for this court to interfere under section 115 of code of civil procedure. in view of the same, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. no costs. 11. per contra .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2012 (HC)

R.Ravichandran. Vs. the Corporation of Chennai, and anr.

Court : Chennai

..... rep.by its member secretary vs p.muthukrishnan and others].the aforesaid decisions are relating to the power of the court under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure relating to rejection of plaint.7. no doubt, the power of the court is wide; even then that has to be exercised cautiously and justly. here, the submissions on the ..... should not have been rejected as aforesaid. as such, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff wants opportunity to put forth his case before the lower court after numbering of the suit and that too after securing the presence of the defendants before the court.8. order xiv of the code of civil procedure contemplates preliminary issue ..... side of the plaintiff are to the effect that the controversy and dispute involved is a mixed question of law and facts andt before numbering the suit itself, the plaint ..... no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint. ............................................................................................................................in the present case the plaint was rejected under order 7 rule 11 of the cpc. such an order amounts to a decree under section 2 (2) and there is a right of appeal open to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2012 (HC)

M/S. Shining India Developers Private Ltd. Vs. Lt. Col. P.S.Bhatnagar

Court : Delhi

..... 656.4. it is by now settled proposition of law that while considering an application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint, the court can take into consideration only the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff. neither the written statement nor the documents filed by the defendant can be considered while ..... 'ble mr. justice v.k.jain judgment v.k.jain, j.(oral) ia 18189/2011(o.7 r.11 cpc) 1. this is an application filed under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure read with section 151 cpc thereof for rejection of the plaint.2. the case of the plaintiff company is that vide agreement to sell dated 22nd october, 2005, the defendant ..... appears to be that the requisite noc/permission was not required to be obtained by him. while considering an application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint, the court cannot examine the truthfulness or otherwise of the averments made in the plaint and the only requirement of law is to consider whether the averments as made in the ..... examined at an appropriate stage while deciding the suit on merits, but for the purpose of deciding an application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, it is only the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff which can be taken into consideration, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that it was the defendant who was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2013 (HC)

Mac Associates Vs. Sp Singh Chandel and anr.

Court : Delhi

..... . justice a.k. pathak a.k. pathak, j.(oral) 1. admit.2. arguments heard and trial court record perused.3. by the order impugned in this appeal trial court has rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure, 1908 (code, for short).4. appellant filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the respondents. it was alleged in the ..... plaint that respondent no. 2 was owner of the property admeasuring 100 square yards and bearing no. wz 251-b, western portion, street no. 1, virender nagar, new delhi 110058. respondent ..... mayar (h.k.) ltd. v. owners & parties, vessel m.v. fortune express, (2006) 3 scc 10.it has yet again been clarified that the court cannot reject a plaint under order vii rule 11 of the cpc on the basis of the allegations made in the written statement. in other words, the defence to the suit is not relevant for the purposes of ..... division bench of this court has held, thus, there can be no gainsaying that an application under order vii rule 11 of the cpc for rejection of the plaint has to be decided entirely on a perusal of the plaint and documents filed along with it. if authorities are required for this proposition, we need not travel beyond the latest exposition of the law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2015 (HC)

Carlton Fortes Vs. Devkikrishna Ravalnath Devasthan Pandavada and Othe ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... itself has become infructuous. 7. the learned judge, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, allowed such application and consequently, rejected the plaint filed by appellant. 8. being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 9. shri lobo, the learned counsel appearing for the ..... the record. 13. the short point for consideration in the present appeal is: whether the learned judge was justified to reject the plaint in terms of order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure? ? 14. in the present case, the averments in the plaint suggests that the suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement executed in the year 2000. the agreement of ..... 2. merely because, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the agreement is void does not, by itself, entitle such respondents to get the plaint rejected in terms of order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. 16. it is well settled that, for the purpose of examining an application under order vii rule 11 of the ..... no.34/2011/b whereby the application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 filed by the respondent no.1 came to be allowed and consequently, the plaint filed by the appellant came to be rejected. 5. the brief facts of the case may be summarized as follows:- the suit came to be filed by the appellant for specific performance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 2016 (HC)

Fortis Hospitals Limited and Others Vs. Antonieta Ribeiro e Souza and ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... this petition is to the order dated 25/3/2015 passed by the learned district judge at panaji in civil suit no.38/b, by which the learned district judge has refused to reject the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure 1908 (cpc) has been dismissed. 2. the brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition can be stated thus: the ..... respondent nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs, who have filed the aforesaid civil suit for recovery of money and compensation against the petitioners ..... written statement and opposed the the claim on various grounds. the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 4 filed an application exhibit 15 under order 7 rule 11 (d) cpc for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the trial court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the suit is barred by limitation as the respondent nos.1 and 2 have allegedly ..... in bud in exercise of its jurisdiction under order 7 rule 11 of cpc. 17. in the case of prema lala nahata, the hon'ble supreme court has held that the effect of mis-joinder of parties and causes of action is not a ground of rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11(d). thus i propose to confine the consideration .....

Tag this Judgment!


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