Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 1909 Page 1 of about 33 results (0.136 seconds)

Nov 15 1909 (PC)

Rhimbai Jamalbhoy Vs. Mariam Abdul Rasool

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-15-1909

Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR149

..... reference of the following questions in the above appeal for decision of the high court of bombay, namely, ' is the plaint sufficiently stamped, and was the order of the court, rejecting the plaint under section 54, clause (&), of the civil procedure code, 1882, without making an order what the requisite stamp should be, legal?'6. on the 7th of october the ..... 14th of august 1908, a petition of appeal was presented to him from the decision of his assistant resident, major carter, in suit no. 176 of 1907, rejecting the plaint on the ground that it was not properly stamped. the petition of appeal, according to the practice in aden, where pleaders are not usually heard, stated the ..... taken, on behalf of the opponents, that this court has no jurisdiction to interfere in revision with any order passed by the resident, in the exercise of his civil jurisdiction under the aden act, on the ground that the resident being only subject to the high court of bombay, in certain specified particulars under the act, ..... decision of the high court. we think, therefore, that, with regard to such questions, this court has the power of revision under section 115 of the code in order that the resident may not refuse to exercise the jurisdiction given to him by that section and may not act with material irregularity in the exercise of ..... or jaw arising in her suit.13. for these reasons we cannot hold that the case calls for any interference under section 115 of the code, and we dismiss the application with costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1909 (PC)

Dwarka Nath Biswas Vs. Kedar Nath Biswas

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-01-1909

Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.1

..... the case came to be heard the court was invited to reject the plaint. the question, therefore, which arose was whether it was competent to the court to reject the plaint under section 54 (b) of the code of civil procedure of 1882 after the plaint had been admitted and duly registered. the full bench answered ..... this question in the affirmative and held that it was competent to a court to reject a plaint although it had been admitted ..... the question now before me is of an entirely different description. no question here arises as to the power of the court to reject the plaint. the question which calls for decision is whether the suit is barred by limitation and whether it was competent to the court after ..... , it is quite clear that the principle deducible deducible therefrom has no application to the circumstancesof the present litigation. in that case the plaint had been originally presented insufficiently stamped. the plaintiffs were directed by the court to pay the deficit court fees within a time prescribed. the ..... period originally fixed or granted may have expired.' one of the acts allowed by the code, is under order 7, rule 11, to require the plaintiff to supply the requisite stamp paper when the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped. we have, therefore, here a legislative approval of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 1909 (PC)

Rahimbhai Jamalbhoy Vs. Mariam Abdul Rasul

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-15-1909

Reported in : 5Ind.Cas.867

..... reference of the following questions in the above appeal for decision of the high court of bombay, namely, 'is the plaint sufficiently stamped, and was the order of the court, rejecting the plaint under section 54, clause (b), of the civil procedure code, 1882, without making an order what the requisite stamp should be, legal?'6. on the 7th of october the ..... 14th of august 1908, a petition of appeal was presented to him from the decision of his assistant resident, major carter, in suit no. 176 of 1907, rejecting the plaint on the ground that it was not properly stamped. the petition of appeal, according to the practice in aden, where pleaders are not usually heard, stated the ..... taken, on behalf of the opponents, that this court has no jurisdiction to interfere in revision with any order passed by the resident, in the exercise of his civil jurisdiction under the aden act, op the ground that the resident being only subject to the high court of bombay, in certain specified particulars under the act, ..... decision of the high court. we think, therefore, that, with regard to such questions, this court has the power of revision under section 115 of the code in order that the resident may not refuse to exercise the jurisdiction given to him by that section and may not act with material irregularity in the exercise of ..... or law arising in her suit.12. for these reasons we cannot hold that the case calls for any interference under section 115 of the code, and we dismiss the application with costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1909 (PC)

Akhoy Kumar Saha and anr. Vs. Nagendra Lal Chowdhury

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-12-1909

Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.118

..... , on the ground that the affixing of the summonses and the copies of the plaint on the outer door of the house was sufficient service under section 80 of the code; and also on the ground that ..... nos. 3 and 4 respectively.2. it appears that two applications were made under section 108, civil procedure code, to set aside an ex parte decree passed against all the defendants. these applications were rejected by the second subordinate judge of chittagong on the 27th may 1907, and the present appeals are ..... the outer door of the defendants' firm. that being so, we are of opinion that under the provisions of section 74 of the civil procedure code service on defendant no. 4 was a good service that binds him and also the other defendants.10. in the above circumstances we dismiss ..... plaint on the outer door of the defendants' business house. defendant no. 4 appears to be am mukhtear of pitambar, defendant no. 3, and evidently is the man of business of defendants nos. 1 and 2, whether, he holds any formal power of attorney or not.5. the subordinate judge has rejected the applications under section 108, civil procedure code ..... the service was a good service under section 74 of the code.6 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1909 (PC)

Bisambhar Lal Vs. Chairman of the Municipal Board of Chapra

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-20-1909

Reported in : 5Ind.Cas.81

..... 424 of the code of civil. procedure, 1882, was imperative, that the giving of the prescribed notice was a condition precedent to the institution of any suit to which the section applied and that where any such suit is instituted in non-compliance with the provisions of the section, the plaint should be rejected as barred by ..... the alternative for the refund of the sum paid as income tax in respect thereof. of this alternative claim no notice under section 424 of the code of civil procedure, 1882, had been given and the objection that in respect of such claim the suit was consequently barred was not taken until after the plaintiff ..... appears to arise for under the provisions of the second clause of the section any fresh suit based on the cause of action stated in the plaint was barred long before the defendant had any opportunity of taking this or any other defence.13. the case of the secretary of state for india ..... 4 of the indian limitation act, 1877, would have properly contended that the suit must be considered to have been commenced on the date on which the plaint was originally presented. in determining when a certain suit was brought or commenced for the purposes of the two clauses, we must' i am of opinion ..... that notice of suit shall be given bat also in its 2nd clause prescribes a special period of limitation. in the present case according to the plaint the cause of action accrued on the 30th of august. if i am to hold that the suit was commenced on the 1st december, that is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1909 (PC)

Fatma Bai Vs. D.R. Umrigar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-03-1909

Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR102

macleod, j.1. the applicant presented this application to the prothonotary under order xxxiii of the civil procedure code for leave to sue as a pauper. under rule 2 her application was bound to contain all the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits, and was therefore bound to show a cause of action. under rule 5, the court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper inter alia when the applicant is not a pauper or when his allegations do not show a cause of action.i l r (1886) 10 bom. 207i l r (1886) 10 bom. 207

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1909 (PC)

Shah Zahid HussaIn and ors. Vs. Shah Zafar HussaIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-05-1909

Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.3

..... all the parties interested were before the court. we set aside the order of the court below and send back the case under order 41, rule '23, of the code of civil procedure with directions to re-admit the suit under its original number in the register and try it according to law. the appellants will have their costs of this appeal including ..... who claim specific plots and accordingly directed the plaintiffs to amend their plaint, and as they failed to do so, rejected the plaint. we are of opinion that the court below was in error in rejecting the plaint. the plaintiffs as we have said above applied for partition. this was a suit to establish the plaintiffs' right ..... plots of land to which they alleged they were entitled and urging that these plots should not be included in the partition. the revenue authorities referred the plaintiffs to the civil court and. thereupon the present suit was brought. the learned subordinate judge was of opinion that the plaintiffs ought to have brought separate suits against the different sets of defendants ..... 1. this is an appeal from an order rejecting a plaint on the ground of misjoinder of parties and causes of action. the plaintiffs and the defendants nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to be recorded co-sharers. the plaintiffs applied .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1909 (PC)

A. Ramanathan Chettyar Vs. P.S. Anathanarayana Iyer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-08-1909

Reported in : 5Ind.Cas.291

..... suits if the court would refuse leave only if the facts alleged in the petition did not disclose any cause of action, for any plaint which disclosed no cause of action would be rejected under the general law of procedure independently of the special provision in section 18. moreover the provision in section 19 of act xx of 1863 that the court before ..... jurisdiction within the meaning of section 622 of the civil procedure code in that he did not give his decision on a bare perusal of the application for leave to sue, but made some enquiry and received an affidavit from the manager ..... 1. a preliminary objection is taken that the order of the district judge under section 18, act xx of 1863, is not open to revision under section 622 of the civil procedure code and reliance is placed on the case of venkateswara, in re 10 m. 98. the petitioner's vakil contends that the district judge acted illegally in the exercise of his ..... . court in c.h.p. no. 20 of 1908.2. the district judge, then did not act illegally in the exercise of his discration, and no petition under section 622 civil procedure code, lies (venkateswara, in re 10 m. 98.3. we dismiss this petition with costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1909 (PC)

Umabai Vs. Bhavu Balvant and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-08-1909

Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.165

..... interested.'38. it is not necessary that every defendant should be interested as to all the reliefs claimed in the suit (order i, rule 5, civil procedure code) but it is necessary ' that there must be a cause of action in which all the defendants are more or less interested although the relief asked ..... in one suit against different defendants who are not jointly liable in respect of each and all of such causes of action-a mode of procedure that the law does not sanction.33. this statement of the law by the full bench of the allahabad high court is important having regard ..... mavji manji v. kuverji narronji 31 b. 516 : 9 bom. l.r. 482 the new civil procedure. code, incorporating in it many-more rules of english practice and procedure than were to be found in the old procedure code, has come into operation and a great many indian cases based on the construction of the language ..... instance, whether the suit as constituted is bad by reason of misjoinder of causes of action and of parties.22. section 45 of the old civil procedure code dealt with the joinder of several causes of action in the same suit and section 28 dealt with the joinder of several defendants in one suit ..... code are of no value. but we have, however, indian authorities dealing with general principals and the policy of the law on the question now under my consideration and i think they are still very useful guides.32. in narsingh das v. mangal dubey 5 a. 163 a full bench of that court held that a plaint had been properly rejected .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1909 (PC)

Gunnaji Bhavaji Vs. Makanji Khushalchand

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-02-1909

Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.159

1. in this case we cannot agree with the learned judge of the court below that an amendment such as was asked for would convert the suit into a suit of different and inconsistent character. the suit would remain the same based upon exactly the same cause of action except for the addition of one allegation. we think, therefore, that the amendment should be allowed as shown in para. 1 of the memorandum of appeal, but as the controversy has arisen entirely through the negligence of the plaintiffs, we direct that they must pay the costs of the appeal and of the first hearing in the court below including the costs if any of the hearing of the judgment. leave granted to defendants to file a supplemental written statement, if so advised.

Tag this Judgment!


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