Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-05-2001
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!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-29-2001
Reported in : 110CompCas610(P& H)
..... and this being the legal position, the suit could not he and thus the order of trial court dismissing the application under rules 10 and 11 of order vii, code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint, is liable to be set aside. in this regard, he has placed reliance on punjab state electricity board v. ashwani kumar, jt 1997 (5) sc 182, ammonia supplies ..... (senior division), jalandhar where the suit is pending under order 7 rules 10 and 11 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint inter-alia contending that the jurisdiction of civil court is expressly and impliedly barred under the law of indian companies act 1956 especially when company petition filed by the applicants is pending before the company law board ..... (sr. division), jallandhar whereby application of the petitioners under order vii rules 1 and 11 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint was dismissed.2. succintly slating, facts of the case are that m/s. standard electricals limited was originaly incorporated on 10.1.1958 as 'indo asian traders private limited' under ..... the cases under the various special acts where jurisdiction of civil court is not specifically barred.23. in view of the above discussion, this civil revision is allowed, application moved by the petitioners under order 7 rules 10 and 11 of the code of civil procedure is allowed and trial court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for being presented before the company .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-09-2001
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT573; 2002(61)DRJ594
..... defendant no. 2, diwan nobat rai, who himself is an advocate, has filed this application being ia. no. 3298/95 under order 7 rule 11 cpc seeking rejection of the pliant on the ground that such a suit is barred by law. it is contended that all the alleged defamatory statements were made in connection with ..... that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]10. a plain reading of order 7 rule 11 cpc shows under clause (a) a pliant can be rejected if from its plain reading it does not disclose any cause of action. for the purpose of ascertaining cause of action perhaps ..... for this purpose even intricate questions of law may have to be gone into. in the present case the defendants seek rejection of the pliant under clause (d) of order 7 rule 11 cpc. thereforee, this court will have to examine whether under the law applicable to the facts stated in the pliant the ..... to appreciate this contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, if is necessary to refer to order 7 rule 11 cpc which reads as under:-order vii, rule 11 cpc the pliant shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;(b) where the relief claimed is ..... or in various petitions to the joint registrar cannot be made the basis for civil action for defamation and thereforee the suit by itself is not maintainable. so the pliant is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 (d) cpc. the application has been contested by the plaintiffs.8. i have heard learned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-07-2001
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT712; 2002(61)DRJ526
..... registration act, 1860. the primary objective of the defendant no. 1 as per memorandum of association and rules and regulations have been detailed in para 3 of the plaint.4. the plaintiff was the prime funding agency for the defendant no. 1 society. between the year 1977 to 1982, the plaintiff contributed nearly rs. 4.50 ..... individuals but also turns the institute into one's personal fiefdom. such a concept is alien to the modern society and cannot be brooked or accepted in a civilized and democratic society.16. merely because a particular body has autonomous status does not mean that it is autocratic. autonomy is provided for effective, profitable and transparent ..... completely autonomous body and is governed by governing council and has its own constitution, cannot come to the rescue of the defendants as the facts disclosed in the plaint show that it was not only brought in existence but it was funded by the plaintiff which was public money.13. even if it is assumed that ..... shows that it has substantial interest in the affairs of defendants no. 1. 12. it is settled law that only on statement of facts disclosed in the plaint, the court has to find out whether the facts disclose any cause of action against the defendant or not. the defense of the defendants that it is a ..... j.d. kapoor, j.1. on the application under order 7 rule 11 cpc moved by the defendants, following preliminary issue was framed:-1) whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action and if so its effect? opd. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-05-2001
Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR537
..... the suit and takes away a vested right of limitation or any other valuable right accrued to the defendant.(2) an order rejecting the plaint.(3) an order refusing leave to defend the suit in an action under order 37, code of civil procedure.(4) an order rescinding leave of the trial judge granted by him under clause 12 of the letters patent.(5) an ..... maintainability of letters patent appeal. the submission of mr. pratap is that the order passed by the learned single judge refusing to reject the plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action under order 7, rule 11(a) of code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) is not appealable as it is not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters ..... actually according to law, on the allegations contained in the plaint, defendant no. 2 was agent of the union of india or not. mere formal allegation ..... on a meaningful and not formal reading of a plaint it is manifest that the plaint is vexatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue trial court should exercise its power under order vii, rule 11, code of civil procedure, and should reject the plaint. so it is meaningful reading of the plaint which is required. it is to be seen if .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-17-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT133; 2002(2)MPLJ44
..... .p. khare, j. 1. this is a revision by the defendants against the order by which their application under order 7 rule 11 (b), cpc for rejection of the plaint on the ground of undervaluation has been turned down. 2. the plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the declaration that the two registered sale-deeds dated ..... practised on him as to the contents of the sale-deed. 4. the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon an unreported order dated 2-7-1997 in civil revision no. 2123 of 1996 : vinay kumar mishra v. geeta mishra. that was a case in which the suit was filed claiming the right of pre-emption ..... amongst the heirs of jageshwar prasad and therefore smt. malo could not sell the suit lands to the defendant nos. 2 to 4. thus according to the plaint the plaintiffs are not the executants of the sale-deeds in question. it is not necessary for them to have the sale-deeds cancelled or set aside. the ..... v. m.p.e.b., 2000(4) m.p.h.t. 318 (fb) = 2000(3) mplj 522]. in the present case the averments in the plaint are that jageshwar prasad mishra was the bhumiswami of the lands in dispute and after his death he left behind his three heirs. the plaintiff no. 1 is widow of ..... been undervalued for purposes of court fee. it is well settled that the question of court fee must be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint and its decision can not be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits. [sathappa chettiar .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-06-2001
Reported in : AIR2002Kant56; 112CompCas394a(Kar); ILR2002KAR695
..... for filing the applications. the expression 'cause of action' has not been defined either under the act or under the rules. even in the code of civil procedure the words 'cause of action' is not defined. but the expression 'cause of action' understood to mean the bundle of facts which are required ..... with a view to avoid recourse to the normal courts of law and to unjustly avail the summary procedure prescribed under the act and therefore the application filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction of the tribunal. 3. respondent 2 in his statement of objections has ..... . therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding maintainability on the ground of alternative remedy is stated to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 23. since the tribunal in the impugned order has dismissed the application on the finding recorded on point no. 2, without considering ..... not provided under the rules. whereas order 7, rule 10 of the cpc provides for return of the plaint if the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. order 7, rule 11 of the cpc provides for rejection of the plaint in certain cases. but under the rules, where an application is filed ..... rs. 10,00,000/- with a view to avoid recourse to the normal courts of law and therefore the application is liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction by the tribunal. so far as the transactions are concerned, both respondents 2 and 3 have admitted in their statement of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-28-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)KarLJ538
..... it appears that they have entered appearance and made an application in interim application no. 6 under order 7, rule 11 of the cpc praying for rejection of the plaint on the premise that it does not disclose any cause of action,6. the learned trial judge took up this application for orders and ..... that the suit is of the nature indicated above, it should take deterrent action apart from rejecting the suit under order 7, rule 11 of the cpc. ultimately, it depends upon the pleadings in the plaint and as to whether the said pleadings indicate any merit or of tenable nature of the claim ..... context of the present petition and having regard to the dispute that has been raised, the defendants were not entitled fur the relief claimed for rejection of plaint by filing such application.14. in any view of the matter, i do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by ..... , the learned trial judge declined the request for allowing the application under order 7, rule 13(a). with regard to other submission that the plaint should be rejected under the provisions under order 7, rule 7(d) on the premise that it is barred by any law, learned counsel for the petitioners ..... 22-2-2000 passed on interim application no. 6 on the file of the principal civil judge (senior division), mangalore, whereby the learned trial judge rejected the said application filed under order 7, rule 11 of the cpc and declined the prayer of the petitioners-defendants.2. the brief facts are that respondents .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-28-2001
Reported in : 108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292
..... court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. 2. this civil revision petition filed under section 18 of the small causes courts act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-26-2001
Reported in : 96(2002)DLT8
..... framed. the suit as filed, and the documents filed along with the plaint, do not disclose a cause of action against the defendants and the plaint is liable to be rejected. the injunction prayed for is refused and the plaint is rejected under provisions of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, as the same discloses no cause of action.'7. appeal was admitted ..... for hearing on 3rd february, 1986 and on the application filed under order 39 rules 1 and 2 cpc notice was issued ..... plaintiff as they do not infringe the alleged trade mark, camlin flora. thereafter he proceeded not only to dismiss the application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 cpc but also rejected the plaint and observed:-'in view of my findings, not only the plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction which they are not entitled to maintain the suit as brought and ..... replication was also filed by the plaintiff. it appears that when application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 cpc came up for consideration, after hearing arguments, learned single judge proceeded not only to dismiss the application but also proceeded to reject the plaint.5. learned single judge after setting out the facts of the case in detail made observations that a mechanically .....Tag this Judgment!