Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 1965 Page 1 of about 128 results (0.153 seconds)

Sep 29 1965 (HC)

Krishan Kumar Grover Vs. Smt. Parmeshri Devi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-29-1965

Reported in : AIR1967P& H389

..... take is stated in rule 11, order 7. of the code of civil procedure, which provides that in case where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a lime to be fixed by the court, fails to do so, the plaint shall be rejected. no doubt, in the definition of 'decree' as contained ..... fall within the terms of sections 115 of the code of civil procedure cannot be revised by the high court merely because it is bound to be followed by some other order which may be without jurisdiction. the learned judge also observed that if the plaintiff made good the deficiency no question of rejection of his plaint would arise and even if he did not ..... in clause (2) of section 2 of the code, a decree shall ..... not interfere as none of the conditions laid down in the three clauses of section 115 of the code of civil procedure has been satisfied. this question has been sufficiently discussed above and reasons have been given for the view that an order holding that the plaint had been undervalued and calling upon the plaintiff to pay additional court-fee by a certain date .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1965 (HC)

Narayan Nagappa Hegde Vs. Shankar Narasimha Bhatta

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-06-1965

Reported in : AIR1966Kant5; AIR1966Mys5; ILR1965KAR143; (1965)1MysLJ223

..... and witnesses on oath, the rejection of the plaint on default of the plaintiff, power to render an ex parte ..... and return of plaint, the examination of the parties ..... code of civil procedure to 'any revenue court' where the special enactment applicable to such court is silent upon any matter of procedure.so far as the act is concerned, section 7 to 20 contain provisions which are almost identical with those contained in the code of civil procedure regarding the contents of plaint, requirements of the plaintiff to subscribe and verify the contents thereof, the rejection ..... to discharge functions of a quasi-judicial nature.'in recording this conclusion, their lordships also took into consideration that only some of the provisions of the code of civil procedure had been made specifically applicable to an enquiry by a tahsildar, that there was nothing in the act which indicated the subordination of those tribunals to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 04 1965 (HC)

Eagle Plywood Industries Private Ltd. Vs. Amulya Gopal Majumdar and or ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-04-1965

Reported in : AIR1966Cal267,69CWN1025

..... section 13 of the court fees act. that provision is as follows :-- ' if an appeal or plaint, which has been rejected by the lower court on any of the grounds mentioned in the code of civil procedure is ordered to be received, or if a suit is remanded in appeal, on any of the grounds ..... ' whether, when an application under section 5 of the indian limitation act is rejected, the appellant can, in any circumstances, get refund of the court-fees, paid on the accompanying memorandum of appeal, under section 151 of the code of civil procedure. '2. a large number of authorities were cited before us on the question ..... was held that it was a fit case where this inherent power should be exercised in favour of the petitioner under section 151 of the code of civil procedure. the petition was accordingly allowed and the court directed the return of the memorandum of appeal with the certificate prayed for. although the learned ..... appellant was entitled to refund of (he court-fees under the inherent powers of the court as may be exercised under section 151 of the code of civil procedure. the learned judges pointed out that the question, therefore arose as to whether under such circumstances the court had any such inherent power in ..... mentioned in section 351 of the same code for a second decision by the lower court, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1965 (HC)

ishwarlal Nandlal Maula Vs. the State of Maharashtra (Now the State of ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-22-1965

Reported in : (1966)7GLR589

..... : air1959sc492 if the subordinate court had jurisdiction to make the order it made and had not acted in breach of provision of law or committed any error of procedure which was material and might have affected the ultimate decision, then the high court had no power to interfere. in s.s. khanna v. f.j. dillon ..... government on the additional ground that it was discriminatory and in violation of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. the trial court had rejected it on the ground that the said amendment could not be allowed as this ground was not taken up in the statutory notice under section 80 ..... order of reversion in rank was illegal and for an amount of rs. 4120/- as difference in salary. the plaintiff had sought the amendment of the plaint under which he had prayed for an additional ground to the effect that the order of the state of bombay was invalid also on the ground of ..... against the conclusions of law or facts in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved. this question had recently come up before the supreme court; in civil appeal no. 163 of 1963 in pandurang dhondi chougale v. maruti hari jadhav decided on 26th april 1965. the bench of the supreme court, consisting of ..... question of the court's jurisdiction and, therefore, it was held that the high court had no power to correct that decision under section 115 of the code. it is thus settled that the errors which relate to jurisdiction alone could thus be corrected under section 115. in questions of facts, however, where .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 1965 (HC)

E.V. Seshadri Vs. State of Mysore and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-12-1965

Reported in : AIR1966Kant31; AIR1966Mys31; (1967)ILLJ42Kant

order(1) in these two petitions filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, the two petitioners have challenged the legality of the order passed by the state fixing the seniority of the second respondent above them in the revised second provisional inter-state seniority list and have sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the government order dated 20th july 1963 bearing no. gad 20 igs. 62 placing the second respondent above sri c.l. subba rao, serial no. 1 in the provisional inter-state seniority list of assistant engineers by which it is done.(2) in order to appreciate the arguments addressed before us, it is necessary to set out, a few facts which are almost undisputed. e.v. seshadri, petitioner in writ petition no. 1455 of 1963 was appointed as a surveyor in the public works department of the erstwhile state of mysore in 1941. he was selected as a probationary assistant engineer in 1945 and was appointed as an assistant engineer on 4th of may 1946. s.k. hanumatha reddy, petitioner in writ petition no.1456 of 1963 joined service of the erstwhile state of mysore as a surveyor on 19-5-1942. he was also selected as a probationary assistant engineer in 1945 and was appointed as an assistant engineer in 1946.the second respondent s. neelakantappa was appointed by the coorg government as an assistant engineer on 2-4-1953. he was promoted as an executive engineer on 10-8-1955 and continued to hold the post .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1965 (HC)

Hotha Venkataramamurthi Vs. Hota Kameswaramma and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-14-1965

Reported in : AIR1966AP276

..... sue in forma pauperis, is rejected the plaint still remains and the court may in the discretion allow the petitioner to pay the court fee and in each a case the suit shall be ..... rejected the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis, the plaint still remains on the file of the court until it is rejected. there is no specific order of the lower court rejecting the plaint.4. the order of the lower court dismissing the original ..... shafi khan, : air1960ap381 in all of which it was held that an application to sue as a pauper is a composite document consisting of an unstamped plaint and an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. the learned judge held in the case cited above that even if the application for permission to ..... an adverse conclusion on a pauper application, to give the appellant sometime to pay the court-fee.3. the trial court in rejecting the criminal petition in its entirety committed an error of jurisdiction. even when the trial court held that the petitioner is not a pauper and ..... petition in its entirety is set aside. but the rejection of the application for leave to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1965 (HC)

P. Parukutty Amma and anr. Vs. K.M. Ramanunni Nair and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-26-1965

Reported in : AIR1966Ker150

..... which reference will be made be me immediately13. coming to the provisions contained in the code of civil procedure, section 26, dealing with institution of suits, states that 'every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed'. section 149 which assumes considerable importance, ..... no separate order declaring that the suit has abated is necessary at all, as is contemplated under order 7. rule 11 whereunder a specific order rejecting the plaint has to be made. if the plaintiff, after being granted time for payment of the deficit court fee and before that period expires, files ..... directions are not complied with, either in the matter of amending the valuation or paying the deficit fee within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected and the court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suita similar right to raise objection about the subject ..... the 18th defendant, and has transposed him as plaintiff, after paying the necessary court fee, and inasmuch as the court itself was not inclined to reject the plaint for non-payment of court fees, i. a. 471/1965 has to be dismissed; and in that view the learned judge dismissed the said ..... the cause of action and as to when exactly it arose rule 11 of order 7 enumerates the various circumstances under which a plaint can be rejected. a plaint can be rejected, as will be seen from rule 11, under one or other of the four contingencies referred to therein, namely (a) where .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1965 (HC)

Raj NaraIn Saxena Vs. Bhim Sen and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-17-1965

Reported in : AIR1966All84

..... officer and in the case of a pauper, when his application for permission to sue as a pauper is made. the rules regarding plaints are contained in order 7 of the code of civil procedure. a plaint must contain, inter alia, the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, the fact showing that the court has ..... not contemplate that such an application can be made to any court and that any court in which it is made must follow the procedure laid down in order 33. rejecting an application for permission on the ground of want of jurisdiction or on the ground of bar of limitation is as much refusal to ..... its doing so; it is its inherent jurisdiction.therefore, if a court has no power to entertain a suit it must refuse to entertain it and reject the plaint (in the absence of a provision authorising it to return it for presentation to the competent court). if rule 10 of order 7 does not apply ..... be returned to him so that he may present it to the competent court. if rule 10 did not exist the court would be bound to reject the plaint. every authority is bound to see that it has the power which it is asked to exercise. a statutory authority has only these powers which the ..... order returning an application for permission for presentation to the competent court with the provisions of order 33 but i do not apprehend any difficulty in reconciling rejection of such an application on the ground of want of jurisdiction (or of bar of limitation) with the provisions of order 33.the decision of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1965 (SC)

Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani Vs. United Arab Republic and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-05-1965

Reported in : AIR1966SC230; [1966]1SCR319

..... republican state is not a ruler of that state cannot be upheld.29. besides, on principle, it is not easy to understand why it should be assumed that the code of civil procedure always made a distinction between rulers of foreign states governed by monarchical form of government and those which were governed by republication form of government. both forms of government have ..... appearance in the suit; and on december 17, 1959, they applied for an order that the leave granted under clause 12 of the letters patent should be revoked, the plaint should be rejected and further proceedings in the suit should be stayed. according to the respondents, the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the president of the ..... present suit. in the result, the appeal preferred by the respondents has been allowed, the order passed by the trial judge has been set aside, and the plaint filed by the appellant has been rejected under prayer (b) of the master's summons. the appellant has applied for and obtained a certificate from the court of appeal and it is with the ..... , the united arab republic, and the ministry of economy, supplies, importation department of the republic of egypt at cairo, on the original side of the calcutta high court. by his plaint, the appellant claimed to recover from the respondents damages assessed at rs. 6,07,346 for breach of contract. according to the appellant, the contract in question was made between .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1965 (HC)

Chandra Sekhar Misra Vs. Gobinda Chandra Das

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Apr-21-1965

Reported in : AIR1966Ori18

..... based on the original transaction of loan and not on the promissory note. the learned s c. c. judge rejected the prayer for amendment on that very day. the civil revision has been filed against this order 2. the recital in ..... is not relevant for the purpose of this revision.on 1-9-1964 plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint under order ft, rule 17, civil procedure code. certain portions of the plaint were prayed to be deleted and to be substituted by the averments that there was an oral agreement that the ..... 476, p. seshappa setty v. katta venkataramana. air 1956 mys 37 and 25 cult it 545). the amendment is therefore allowed.allowing amendment of the plaint does not, however, mean that the plaintiff's suit on the original cause of action, if proved, must necessarily succeed. if on the evidence the ..... form, and to have sued both on the hundis and alternatively upon the consideration.thus if the plaintiff could have advanced alternative cases in the plaint itself, both on the basis of the negotiable instrument and on the basis of the consideration, it would be fantastic to contend that the amendment ..... principal and interest at 12 per cent per annum would be paid on demand. the object of the amendment was to clearly state that the plaint is .....

Tag this Judgment!


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