Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Sorted by: recent Court: allahabad Page 1 of about 1,222 results (0.190 seconds)

Dec 18 2008 (HC)

Smt. Hiramani Devi and anr. Vs. Sanjay Singh

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2009(1)AWC926

..... , this court is of the opinion that the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure provides that the plaint would be rejected if the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the ..... . the notices were issued to defendant-petitioner no. 1, who appeared and filed an objection under order vii, rule 11 alleging that the suit was undervalued, and consequently, the plaint should be rejected. it was alleged that the munsarim had given a wrong report with regard to the sufficiency of the court-fee.3. based on the aforesaid application, the plaintiff filed ..... to do so. it clearly provides that if an objection with regard to undervaluation is taken by the defendant and the court finds that the suit is undervalued, it cannot reject the plaint straightway, but permit the plaintiff to rectify the defect and only upon its failure to do so that the court would proceed to ..... reject the plaint. similarly, section 6 (5) of the court fees act, as applicable in the state of u.p., provides as under:6(5) in case the deficiency in court-fee is .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 02 2008 (HC)

Mohd. Kaisar Vs. Chabbili Devi

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2008(3)AWC2693

..... district judge, court no. 7, bareilly in election petition no. 34 of 2006 between chabbili devi v. mohd. kaisar rejecting his application under order vii, rule 11, code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint.3. shri t.p. singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election petition was liable to be dismissed ..... also found that there was sufficient pleading supported by material particulars and thus the election petition was not liable to be rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.6. shri t.p. singh submits that the note of munsarim on the election petition is sufficient material to prove that ..... p.c. the written statement has to be filed within 30 days and with adjournment upto a maximum period of 90 days. the mandate of the code of civil procedure with regard to time frame within which the written statement has to be filed is relaxed by the supreme court in kailash v. narihku : air2005sc2441 ..... nagar panchayat, and were entitled to vote at only one place voted at two places and thereby all these 76 votes were liable to be rejected. one of the person was not present and was employed. the 21 persons had died before 3.11.2006 (the date of election) in ..... the election. the election petition has been filed with fishing and roving allegations, which do not constitute cause of action and was liable to be rejected.4. shri siddharth verma on the other hand submits that cause of action is the bundle of facts, which constitutes a cause to maintain a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2005 (HC)

Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Shri Gulab Singh, Chairman, Zila Panchayat Vs. St ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3563; 2005(3)ESC2209

..... every complaint and affidavit under this rule as well as any schedule or annexure thereto shall be verified in the manner laid down in the code of civil procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings and affidavit respectively.(4) not less than three copies of the complaint as well as of each of ..... provisions of rule 3(5). the provision is analogous to order 7, rule 11 cpc, which provides that if the plaint is not filed in duplicate as required under order 4 rule 1 cpc, the plaint is to be rejected, ix. as the complaint itself was not in accordance with rules, in view of ..... could approached this court to challenge the order. the only possible answer is no.43. in view of the above, the application for impleadment stands rejected. however, since the issues raised in this writ petition have' wide repercussions and since the questions to be answered are of a serious nature, we ..... his title to someone. however, in dr. duryodhan sahu and ors. v. jitendra kumar mishra and ors., : (1998)iillj1013sc , the hon'ble supreme court rejected the claim of a stranger to maintain a writ petition even in public interest.23. in m.s. jayaraj v. commissioner of excise, kerala and ors., : ..... motivated person and is there beneficiary of the impugned order. he cannot be termed as a 'person aggrieved'. therefore, his application is liable to be rejected. shri s.m.a. kazmi, learned chief standing counsel has supported shri shashi nandan and submitted that the application for impleadment deserves to be allowed. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2004 (TRI)

industrial Development Bank of Vs. Malwa Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : III(2006)BC54

..... period of notice under section 80 of the cpc the plaint was taken back by the appellant-bank and then again flied on the same ..... 1998 of the order sheet of the suit before the civil court, it is clear that the suit was filed on 5th december, 1997 with a prayer to waive the right of notice under section 80 of the cpc but when the same has been rejected and the plaint was ordered to be returned, then after spending the ..... december, 1997 pending and then included respondent-defendant no. 2 after expiry of the period of notice under section 80 of the cpc, but the same was not done, rather the plaint got returned and then filed afresh on 11th february, 1998 and hence the suit should be construed as filed on 11th february, ..... that necessity arose to file the suit premature because of urgency without compliance of section 80 (1) of the cpc the plaint was ordered to be returned as no urgency was found and as such the plaint was taken back from the side of the appellant-bank and it was re-filed on 11th february, 1998 ..... -operative society act vide notice dated 10th october, 1997 and also the notice was sent under section 80 of the cpc on that date. after expiry of the period of notice, the re-submitted plaint was registered before the district judge, indore and when the debts recovery tribunal was set up at jabalpur, the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 2004 (HC)

Satish Kumar Vs. Additional District Judge and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(1)AWC666; (2004)3UPLBEC2806

..... the election of the petitioner was liable to be declared void. the petitioner initially filed an application purporting to be under order vii, rule 11 (a) of the code of civil procedure for rejecting the plaint as it did not disclose any cause of action. the said application was dismissed by the election tribunal vide order dated 15th may, 2002. the writ petition filed by ..... jurisdiction under order vii, rule 11 can be exercised. the apex court has held that order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure does not justify rejection of any particular portion of the plaint and order vi, rule 16 of the code is relevant in this regard. it deals with striking out pleadings. it has three clauses permitting the court at any stage of ..... or not are to be looked into for determining whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint or not. this is relevant for the purpose of considering as to whether the plaint should be rejected outright under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure or not. this exercise has already been done by the election tribunal earlier when it had ..... rejected the application filed by the petitioner under order vii, rule ii of the code of civil procedure, which order has also been upheld by this court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2003 (HC)

Ganpat Lal Gupta and ors. Vs. Vth Additional District Judge and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2126

..... the respondents setting aside the order dated 8.1.1991, passed by the trial court allowing the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint under order vi, rule 17 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter called c.p.c.).2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed suit no. 46 of 1989 against ..... or prejudice to the other side. the amendment sought should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. application for amendment may be rejected if the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him injury which could not be ..... . prademanju agarwal : [1997]3scr508 .22. in estrella rubber v. dass estate pvt. ltd. : air2001sc3295 , the supreme court held that mere delay in making the amendment application is not enough to reject the application unless a new case is made out, or serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the other side so as to take away any accrued right ..... to quantification of the fee, some changes are sought to be introduced while retaining the total amount claimed in the original plaint, does not mean that the nature of relief claimed has undergone a material change. therefore, the grounds of rejection of amendments are legally unjustified and based on non-application of mind to the exact nature of amendments.'28. in sampath .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2002 (HC)

Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC251

..... srivastava, advocate withdrew from the case. it be also mentioned that the impugned order was passed on the application under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. for rejecting the plaint as early as on 27.9.1993, against which the defendant revisionist filed writ petition nos. 38645 of 1993 and 38647 of 1993. the writ petitions were entertained by this ..... revisions were heard on merits.20. the question whether the suit could proceed, or the plaint should be rejected go to very root of the matter. the exercise of powers in wrongly rejecting the plaint under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. or refusing to reject the plaint under the said provisions is jurisdictional matter. the court below, therefore, committed an error of ..... jurisdiction in not rejecting the plaint under order vii, rule 11, c.p.c. and the said order could ..... b.k. rathi, j. 1. the above civil revisions were allowed by the judgment and order dated 25.7.2002 by which plaint of original suit no. 44 of 1993 and of original suit no. 45 of 1993 were quashed.2. the plaintiff-opposite party has moved an application for recall ..... 7.2002, nor there is any illegality in the order which might have resulted in injustice. accordingly, both applications for recalling the order dated 25.7.2002 are rejected. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 2002 (HC)

Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR2003All140

..... representative capacity by the respondent nos. 2 to 6, the petitioner filed an application on 13-9-2000 under the provisions of order 7, rule 11 of code of civil procedure praying that the plaint may be rejected as the same does not disclose any cause of action. it was also stated in the said application that the suit was not maintainable and is also ..... , the provisions of the societies registration act are not at all attracted, thus, the suit was specifically maintainable. he further submitted that against the order rejecting the application under order 7, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, a revision lies, therefore, the writ petition itself is n'ot maintainable. he relied upon the following decisions :(1999) 1 scc 209 : (air 1999 sc ..... the provisions of order 1, rule 9 of code of civil procedures have not been complied with.7. the first learned additional civil judge, senior division, allahabad, respondent no. 1 vide impugned order dated 27-11-2000 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under order 7, rule 11, c.p.c. by holding that the plaint discloses cause of action and the same is ..... barred by the provisions of societies registration act. the petitioner has also filed his objection under order 39, rule 4 of code of civil procedure for setting aside the ex parte .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2001 (HC)

Prem Kumari Sharma Vs. Raj Mani Dubey and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC157

..... rent regarding the same premises. in that suit, the applicant moved an application under order 1. rule 10, c.p.c.. which was rejected by the trial court. therefore, the applicant filed a civil revision no. 399 of 1994. which was allowed by the district judge. allahabad on 1.2.1995 by order, annexure-1 to the ..... small causes court.10. as against this, the learned senior advocate for the respondents has argued that he has not filed that plaint. on the other hand, he has filed a fresh suit on the fresh cause of action. it is contended that first notice was given on 21.4 ..... senior advocate for the revisionist that the suit, thereafter, could have been filed only in the present form. that after taking back the plaint. it should have been presented in the court in the same form, but it was not done and fresh suit was filed in the court of judge, ..... court only. the applications were disposed of by the order, dated 29.11-1995 and after considering the facts, the then trial court ordered that the plaint be returned under section 23 of the provincial small causes court for being presented to the regular court.9. it has been argued by sri ravi kiran jain. ..... the valuation of rs. 25.000 and the valuation of the suit is more than rs. 25,000. another application was moved for return of the plaint under section 23 of the provincial small causes court act for the reason that the suit involved the question of title which could be decided by the regular .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2000 (HC)

Rajendra Prakash Vs. Smt. Babita Gupta Alias Pratiba Gupta and Others

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2253

..... execution and registration of the saledeed or that there was a promise to pay or that there was any payment. therefore, at this stage the plaint cannot be rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.14. mr. prakash krishna had relied on a passage from mulla on the transfer of property act, 1882 at page 303 of the sixth edition ..... was an assurance by the husband of the plaintiff that such amount would be adjusted.5. the defendant had also made an application under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. this application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24th august, 1998. the learned ..... , which will be referred to at appropriate stage, mr. prakash krishna submits that it is abundantly clear that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and as such, it is to be rejected under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. he had relied on some decisions in support of his contention in this respect as well. those decisions would ..... not otherwise. therefore. it is not a question which can be decided at this stage and the plaint should be rejected on the ground of absence of cause of action. he lastly contended that in view of the proviso to section 115 of the code of civil procedure, the order having not conclusively determined the right between the parties and having not resulted into any .....

Tag this Judgment!


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