Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 48 results (0.152 seconds)

Nov 19 2004 (SC)

Raj Kumar Vs. Dipender Kaur Sethi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-19-2004

Reported in : 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)170; 2005(1)ARC450; 2005(1)AWC311(SC); 2004(3)BLJR2213; 2004(5)CTC685; 2004(9)SCALE565; (2005)9SCC304

..... the contract in terms of the agreement, was inadvertently omitted even in the amended plaint.4. on 10th june 1992 the respondent filed an application under section 151 of the cpc order 7 rule 11 and sought an order to reject the amended plaint. by an order dated 18.5.93 the trial court disposed of the said ..... relief act for specific performance. on 3.10.1991 the appellant moved an application under order 6 rule 17 read with section 115 of cpc for making appropriate amendments in the plaint to convert it into a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.12.1989. this application was allowed on 29. ..... 1. leave granted.2. these appeals are directed against the orders of the high court of punjab and haryana dated 30.10.2002 dismissing the civil revision application no. 1837 of 1995 and the order dated 22.8.2003 in c.m. no. 10021-cii of 2003 declining to recall the ..... to the appellant to make appropriate application to the trial court. on 5.3.1994 the appellant filed an application under order 6 rule 17 cpc read with section 151 cpc for amendment of plaint and ..... be invoked against him. the appellant thereafter filed the amended plaint in compliance with the said order.5. the respondent-defendant challenged the order of the trial court dated 18.5.93 by a civil writ petition - cr no. 2214 of 1993 which was disposed of by an order made on 15.8.1993 giving liberty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 2004 (SC)

Sri Inder SaIn Bedi (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Chopra Electricals

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-27-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)AWC2980(SC); JT2004(7)SC345; (2005)139PLR477; 2004(7)SCALE227; (2004)7SCC277

..... payable by the respondent in accordance with order 20 rule 12 of code of civil procedure.3. respondent in his written statement took preliminary objection that the plaint was liable to be rejected as the appellant has not given any valuation in the plaint regarding relief of mesne profit. another preliminary objection taken was that notice ..... as a tenant of the entire portion of property of the plaintiff, which was in occupation of the defendant.'13. in para 2 of the plaint the appellant had made a specific averment that the respondent had taken from the appellant a portion comprising of hall, 3 office cum store rooms ..... appellant filed replication to the written statement filed by the respondent denying the averment in the written statement and reiterated the averment set out in the plaint.5. on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the trial court:'i) whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree ..... parties that the appellant filed suit no. 519 of 1994 for possession of the portion shown in the green colour in the plan attached with the plaint.] that the appellant served a notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') dated 6.3. ..... , (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') as shown in red colour in the site plan ex. p.2. it was averred in the plaint that the respondent had taken from the appellant one hall, three offices-cum-store room and toilets for workmen in the ground floor and two mezzanine halls .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 2004 (SC)

Pankaja and anr. Vs. Yellappa (D) by Lrs. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-05-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC4102; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1022; 2005(1)ARC638; 2004(3)AWC2733(SC); 2004(2)BomCR273; 98(2004)CLT612(SC); 2004(4)CTC231; JT2004(6)SC259; 2004(6)KarLJ169; 2004(4)MhLj488;

..... are now before us in this appeal challenging the said order of the high court as also the order of the principal civil judge, shimoga, rejecting their application praying for amendment of the plaint.10. ms. kiran suri, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial court was in error in coming to the ..... them the prayer for declaration of title is not barred by limitation, therefore, both the courts below have seriously erred in not considering this question before rejecting the prayer for amendment. in such a situation where there is a dispute as to the bar of limitation this court in the case of ragu thilak ..... of this court where this court had taken the view that delay in filing an application for amendment by itself should not be a ground for rejection of such application unless a serious prejudice was caused to the opposite party. she further submitted on the facts of this case the necessary averments ..... 2000 realizing that a prayer for declaration on the facts of the case was essential the appellants filed an application for amendment of the plaint under order 6 rule 17, cpc by adding the following prayers :-'[a] to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners a1.b.m.n.n1.o1.o.l of ..... the suit schedule property.'6. the principal civil judge, shimoga, by his judgment and order dated 22nd of september, 2000 rejected the application of the appellants .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2004 (SC)

Exphar Sa and anr. Vs. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-20-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1682; 2004(2)AWC1515(SC); 2004(73)DRJ663; JT2004(3)SC1; (2004)2MLJ156(SC); 2004(28)PTC251(SC); 2004(2)SCALE589; (2004)3SCC688

..... entertain the suit. consequently the appellants' appeal was also dismissed. these orders are now impugned before us.8. we find that there was neither an application for rejection of the plaint nor for return of the plaint under order vii rules 11 and 10 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, filed by the respondents and the order of the division bench directing return of the ..... plaint was wholly outside the scope of the pending appeals. in fact, the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of the high court to entertain the appellants' suit was not even raised ..... this act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.(2) for the purpose of sub-section (1), a 'district court having jurisdiction' shall notwithstanding anything contained in the code of civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of ..... would like to emphasise the word 'include'. this shows that the jurisdiction for the purposes of section 62 is wider than that of the court as prescribed under the code of civil procedure, 1908. the relevant extract of the report of the joint committee published in the gazette of india dated 23-11-1956 which preceded and laid the foundation for section 62 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2004 (SC)

Chitivalasa Jute Mills Vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-04-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1687; 2004(1)AWC796(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN56; JT2004(2)SC535; (2004)137PLR290; 2004(2)SCALE213; (2004)3SCC85; 2004(2)LC789(SC)

..... in issue the rejection of plea under section 10 of the cpc but the filing of the revision was delayed and the high court refused to condone the delay consequent whereupon the civil revision came to be dismissed.8. chitivalasa jute mills have filed this petition under section 25 of the code of civil procedure to transfer ..... visakhapatnam, the two suits shall be consolidated for the purpose of trial and decision. the trial court may frame consolidated issues. the code of civil procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of suits but the same can be done under the inherent powers of the court flowing from section 151 of ..... deny that chitivalasa jute mills is nothing but a division of willard india limited. the fact remains that the cause of action alleged in the two plaints refers to the same period and the same transactions, i.e., the supply of jute bags between the period 07.01.1992 and 31.12.1993 ..... s. no. 68 of 1997 praying for a decree of rs. 48,00,630/- with interest and costs. according to willard india, as alleged in the plaint, the claim is for the price of the goods supplied and not paid, and for interest thereon for the period of non-payment. 5. in january ..... order of rejection having achieved a finality this transfer petition by willard india is nothing but an indirect attempt at reaching the same end. having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the transfer petition deserves to be allowed.9. on the facts averred in the two plaints filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2004 (SC)

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-23-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1801; 2004(2)ALD115(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)360; 2004(2)AWC1505(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN152; 2004(2)SCALE82; (2004)3SCC137; 2004(2)LC817(SC)

..... , senior division, srirampur have questioned legality of the conclusions arrived at by the courts below holding that the plaint filed by them was to be rejected in terms of order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code'). the plaintiffs claimed to be tenants under respondent no. 2. shaneshwar deosthan trust (hereinafter referred to as the 'trust'). its trustees and ..... trust. an application was filed by the trust raising a preliminary plea that the plaint is liable to be rejected under order vii rule 11 of the code. with reference to section 80 of the bombay public trusts act, 1950 (in short the 'act') it was urged that no civil court had jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which by or under ..... loss. all this according to him, disentitle the appellants from any relief under article 136 of the constitution.7. order vii rule 11 of the code reads as follows:order vii rule 11: rejection of plaint.- the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :-(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action:(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff ..... mr. mohta appearing for the appellants, as noted above, the reliefs are separable and merely because some of the reliefs cannot be granted by the civil court it would entail an automatic rejection of the old plaint. in fact he submitted that some of the reliefs would be given up by the plaintiffs in the suit itself. it is true as contended by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 04 2004 (SC)

State of Haryana Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jun-04-2004

Reported in : JT2004(5)SC72; 2004(6)SCALE75; (2004)12SCC673

..... . order xxiii rule 6(a) only gives effect to limitations implicit in article 131 itself. it follows that it does not violate article 131 or any other provision of the constitution.30. the application under order xxiii rule 6 of the rules is by way of demurrer. the question whether the plaint should be rejected must therefore ..... and said:'the jurisdiction conferred on the supreme court by article 131 of the constitution should not be tested on the anvil of banal rules which are applied under the code of civil procedure for determining whether a suit is maintainable. article 131 undoubtedly confers 'original jurisdiction' on the supreme court and the commonest form of a legal proceeding which is tried by ..... evident that the phrase 'cause of action' as occurring in order xxiii rule 6(a) does not appear in article 131. the phrase, which occurs in section 20 of the code of civil procedure and is commonly used in connection with 'ordinary' suits, has, in that context,'acquired a judicially-settled meaning. in the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming ..... . if the plaint does not ex facie show the fulfillment of that condition, it would not be maintainable. this follows from the language of article 131 itself. therefore merely because the phrase 'cause of action' has been used in order xxiii rule 6(a) does not mean that principles enunciated in the context of section 20 of the code of civil procedure are imported .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2004 (SC)

Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-28-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2321; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)700; III(2004)BC56; [2004]120CompCas672(SC); (2004)3CompLJ1(SC); 2004(3)CTC365; 111(2004)DLT480(SC); 2004(77)DRJ317; 2004(186)ELT3(SC); [2004

..... of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. '8. section 20(c) of the code of civil procedure reads as under :'20 other suits to be instituted where defendant reside or cause of action arises.subject to the limitation aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court ..... , the office of the authority who is to implement the order would attract the territorial jurisdiction of the court was considered having regard to section 20(c) of the code of civil procedure as article 226 of the constitution thence stood stating :'...the concept of cause of action cannot in our opinion be introduced in article 226 for by doing so we shall ..... part of cause of action. its importance is beyond any doubt. for every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.7. clause (2) of article 226 of the constitution of india reads thus:'(2) the power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions ..... set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. it refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.'12. this court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2004 (SC)

Smt. Gorabai and ors. Vs. Ummed Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-19-2004

Reported in : JT2004(Suppl1)SC318; 2004(3)MPHT490; 2004(5)SCALE59; (2004)5SCC130

..... in the name of state, the state was a necessary party to the suit. reference is also made to the provisions of order 1 rule 3(a) of the code of civil procedure as amended in the state of madhya pradesh. in view of the discussion aforesaid, we do not think proper at this belated stage to allow parties to implead the state ..... appeal succeeds and is allowed. the judgments respectively of the high court and the courts below, are, hereby, set aside. the suit in terms of the prayer clause in the plaint to the extent of delivery of possession of the lands in suit is decreed.22. in view of the long pendency of the litigation between the parties and as both ..... present act which came into force w.e.f. 02.10.1951. it may be made clear that the provisions of gwalior-mal- qanoon did not bar filing of a civil suit within the prescribed period under limitation act by the proprietor for seeking eviction and obtaining possession of his khud-kasht lands from his tenants. on the facts found in ..... of madhya pradesh as a party. the objection to the non-maintainability of suit for non-joinder of state as party raised at this stage, therefore, is rejected. however, it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2004 (SC)

Pukhraj D. JaIn and ors. Vs. G. Gopalakrishna

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-16-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3504; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)932; 2004(3)AWC2214(SC); 2004(3)CTC308; JT2004(5)SC329; (2004)3MLJ183(SC); 2004(4)SCALE688; (2004)7SCC251

..... erroneous in law and must be set aside. the proceedings in the trial of a suit have to be conducted in accordance with provisions of the code of civil procedure. section 10 cpc no doubt lays down that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially ..... recovery of the amount was decreed by the trial court on 24.7.1985 but he himself preferred a revision against the decree wherein an order of rejection of the plaint was passed by the high court. in such circumstances, it is absolutely apparent that the respondent no.1 was not ready and willing to perform his ..... of rs.12.50 on the enhanced claim, the high court in a revision filed by him set aside the decree for refund of the amount and rejected the plaint. the suit giving rise to the present appeal was instituted by respondent no.1 on 2.4.1988 wherein he again sought specific performance of the agreement ..... was an unusual revision filed by a plaintiff yet allowed the same on 18.2.1987, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and rejected the plaint.(vi) the appellants nos.1 to 5 after execution of the sale deed in their favour on 18.4.1985, filed a suit being os no. ..... paying aforesaid amount the respondent no.1 filed a memo stating that he was not in a position to pay the court fee and as such the plaint may be rejected being deficiently stamped. the trial court decreed the suit for recovery of the amount on 24.7.1985.(v) though the suit filed by respondent no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

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