Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 1974 Page 1 of about 171 results (0.103 seconds)

Feb 22 1974 (HC)

Siraj UddIn Alias Vs. Abdul Haq Pracha and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-22-1974

Reported in : 10(1974)DLT250

..... into a suit in forma pauperis if an application to sue as a-pauper moved subsequently is granted. it would be only a futile exercise to first reject the plaint under order 7 rule 11 civil procedure code and then consider the pauper application as a fresh institution. taking a practical view i would not regard the pauper application moved subsequently to be barred, if ..... been resisted by the defendants who have contended that the application is not in proper form as prescribed by order 33 rule 2 civil procedure code ., that the plaint in suit no. 302of 1972 must be rejected under order 7 rule ii civil procedure code for noncompliance with the order of court dated may 10, 1972, it is not admitted that the plaintiffs were unable to pay the ..... no valid contract of tenancy between defendantno. 1 and qutub uddin and, admittedly, the plaintiffs were in possession. the argument has merely to be stated to be rejected. ' there is no averment in the plaint nor has my attention been invited to anyact of the plaintiffs claiming independent title by way of adversepossession. no particulars were given as to when title adverse ..... the consideration of the question as to whether the present pauper application has been properly moved and complies with the provisions of order 33 rules 1 to 4 of the code of civilprocedure.(8) p.a. 6 of 1972 was filed by the plaintiffs and it was moved before the court by one of the plaintiffs and the counsel. this is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1974 (HC)

Ebrahimbhai Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-11-1974

Reported in : AIR1975Bom13; (1974)76BOMLR769; 1974MhLJ562

..... before the expiration of the period of notice contemplated by section 80 , there is no alternative for the court to reject the plaint under order 7, rule 11 (d) of the code of civil procedure.11. in the view which we have taken we are supported by the decisions of the punjab and the patna high ..... of two months next after the notice dated 31-12-1963 had been delivered to the defendants and the plaint was, therefore, liable to be rejected under order 7, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.3. the trial court had framed several issues on the pleadings of the parties but took up only ..... i.e. before the expiry of the period of two months provided by section 80 of the code of civil procedure. in the plaint, the plaintiff has averred several facts referred to earlier leading to the rejection of his objection to the sale of the disputed house which he claimed to be his own and ..... the trial court, it having found that the mandatory provisions of section 80 had not been complied with. an order rejecting the plaint under order 7, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure was passed by the trial court. the plaintiff has now filed this appeal challenging the decision of the trial court.4 ..... chandurkar, j.1. this is a plaintiff's appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the joint civil judge, senior division, nagpur, rejecting his plaint under order 7, rule 11, of the code of civil procedure, on the ground that the suit filed by him was premature. the facts which gave rise to the suit filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1974 (HC)

R.P. Kapur Vs. the Union of India and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-19-1974

Reported in : 11(1975)DLT150

..... pass any order rejecting the plaint, thereforee, there was no rejection of the plaint and that suit continued to remain on the file. while it continued on the file the ..... the time under section 149, code of civil procedure. as was said by the supreme court in jugal kishore's ..... enlarged the time for payment of court fee from time to time. this plaint cannot stand automatically rejected without an express order of the court. the court never passed an order rejecting this plaint under order 7 rule ll(c). code of civil procedure. if the plaint has not been rejected and the time for payment of court fee has expired the court certainly has the power to extend ..... a case it is open to the court under section 149, code of civil procedure to order the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee and enlarge the period to pay such court fee. (5)if court fee is not paid the court can reject the plaint under order 7, rule 11 (c). code of civil procedure. 14. the supreme court held that the trial court did not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1974 (HC)

Albert D'Souza and Ors. Vs. the Divisional Controller and Deputy Gener ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-13-1974

Reported in : AIR1975Kant82; ILR1974KAR809

..... reported in (1968) 2 mys lj 194 = (1968 lab ic 1571) that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred by law. he, therefore, rejected the plaints by applying the provisions of order 7. rule 11 (d) of the code of civil procedure (to be hereinafter referred to as the code). these are the orders challenged in those revision petitions.6. sri. k. s. puttaswany, the learned ..... advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent in all these matters, raised an objection that the revision petitions are incompetent in view of the specific provisions of section 115 of the code and the rejection of a plaint ..... amounts to a decree and such a decree is appealable under section 96 of the code and under section 20 of the karnataka civil courts act, 1964 to be hereinafter referred to as the act) he urged that the court of ..... the civil judge was the appellate court and appeals against such decrees ought to have been filed before that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1974 (HC)

Santoksingh and anr. Vs. Radheshyam and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-13-1974

Reported in : AIR1975Bom5

..... misir as co-plaintiff when the application filed by the plaintiff was held to be defective and liable to be rejected under order 33, rule 5 (d) of the code of civil procedure. a revision application filed by the father also came to be rejected by the high court. while setting aside the order of the high court, the supreme court made the observations relied ..... properly stamped. the general rule, therefore in the case of suits is that the plaint cannot be treated as a valid plaint unless the requisite amount of court-fee has been paid as provided for in the court-fees act. the provisions of order 33 of the code of civil procedure are in the nature of an exception to this general rule. the exception is ..... analogous to the provisions of order 33, rule 1 of the present code of civil procedure, the privy council took the view that a petition to sue in forma pauper is contains all that a plaint is required to do and 'it contains in itself all the particulars the statute requires in the plaint, and plus these a prayer that the plaintiff' may be allowed ..... to be continued by the legal representatives unless they paid the requisite court-fee. it was contended on behalf of the legal representatives before the trial court that since the plaint had already been registered after the original plaintiff was adjudged as a pauper the legal representatives could continue the suit without being required to pay the court-fee. the trial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1974 (HC)

Ghousia Begum Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-06-1974

Reported in : AIR1975Mad345

..... , and the proviso it was open to the appellant to file the suit without issuing the notice required by section 80 of the code of civil procedure notwithstanding the feet that that code, as it was in force in the state of madras on the first day of august 1966, has been made applicable to pondicherry ..... counsel's fee rs. 250/-. a. s. no. 167 of 1970:26. ghousia begum had not given the notice required by section 80 of the code of civil procedure before she filed o. s. no. 160 of 1969 on 2-1-1969 in the court of the additional district judge, pondicherry, for a permanent injunction ..... to the notice might be considered as a preleminary issue. the court below found that the appellant, who could have filed the suit even before the code of civil procedure, 1908 was extended to the union territory of pondicherry as the notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act was made on 10-11- ..... only under order vii, rule 1 of the civil procedure code, 1908, was bound to issue the notice as required by section 80 of the code. it held that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of the notice and rejected the plaint under order vii, rule 11 of the code. hence the appeal. w. p. no. 2795 ..... section 45-a after section 45. and section 45-a deals with execution of decrees etc., passed or made before the commencement of the code in pondicherry. the code of civil procedure, as it was in force in the state of madras on the first day of august, 1966 has thus been made applicable to pondicherry .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1974 (HC)

Smt. ChamarIn Vs. Mst. BudhiyarIn and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-14-1974

Reported in : AIR1975MP74

..... raina, j.1. the following questions have been referred to this bench by the learned single judge for decision:(i) whether rejection of a plaint on grounds other than those specified in order 7, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure amounts to a decree?(ii) whether the dismissal of a suit for non-compliance with the provisions of order 6, rule 5 of the ..... an order is, therefore, not appealable.14. we, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as under:(i) the rejection of a plaint on grounds other than those specified in order 7, rule 11, of the code of civil procedure does not amount to a decree.(ii) the dismissal of a suit for non-compliance with the provisions of order 6, rule 5, of the ..... code of civil procedure does not amount to a decree within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 2 of the code and ..... code of civil procedure amounts to a decree and is as such appealable?2. the aforesaid questions arose before one of us (raina, j.) in civil .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 1974 (HC)

Krishan Sarup Oberoi Vs. Ram Niwas

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-08-1974

Reported in : AIR1975P& H22

..... section 13 of the court-fees act. the relevant portion of the said section reads:'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 ..... that in the first instance, the remand in the present case will not be under rule 23-a, but the same will be under section 151 of toe code of civil procedure, because, according to him, firstly, we had not reversed the decree of the trial court, its mentioned in the said rule, but had merely set ..... punj 215.6. rule 23-a was added by the lahore high court in 1938 under its rule-making power given in section 122 of the code of civil procedure and it reads:'where the court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point and the decree ..... to lead evidence.2. the appellant has made this application under section 13 of the indian court-fees act, 1870, read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure, for a certificate directing refund of the court-fee amounting to rs. 1564/-, which he had paid on the appeal filed in this court and which ..... mentioned in section 351 of the same code for a second decision by the lower court, the appellate court shall grant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1974 (HC)

Ghanshiam Singh Vs. Smt. Har Piarey and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-06-1974

Reported in : AIR1974All229

..... the deceased judgment-debtor the decision is a decree. it was held that such a decision comes under clause (3) of section 47 of the code of civil procedure and that an appeal lies against it. same was the view taken by another division bench in ram autar's case : air1936all479 (supra). in ..... conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. it shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint ..... 7. in my opinion the decision by the execution court was a decree within meaning of the said term in section 2(2) of the code of civil procedure which defines a decree as follows:--' 'decree' means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, ..... shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. this sub-section left to itself does not provide for any procedure to determine as to whether a person is or is not the representative of a party. even if sub-section (3) had not been ..... execution court under section 47 and such a decision is appealable under the provisions of the code.10. some controversy was raised at the bar as to whether a decision under order xxii, rule 5, civil p. c. could or could not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1974 (HC)

Asuda Singh Vs. K.B. Pahlaj Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-23-1974

Reported in : 10(1974)DLT394; ILR1975Delhi115; 1974RLR673

..... unable to sustain the finding of the learned trial court that the, plaint in the interpleader suit deserved to be rejected. the learned trial court should have proceeded with the suit in accordance with the procedure prescribed 'by order 35 of the code of civil procedure.(12) the finding in the alternative recorded in the judgment that defendant ..... . we remand the interpleader suit for being tried by the competent court on merits in accordance with the provisions of order 35 of the code of civil procedure. it will be open to the learned trial court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in regard to deposit in court of ..... that in order to justify an. interpleader suit the claims of the rival claiments should be shown to have 'legal justification'. section 88 of the code of civil procedure confers a right' on the person holding a debt, or a sum of money, or property, moveable or immoveable, to which two or more ..... defendants 2 and 3 produced no evidence.(4) the learned trial court while dealing with issue no. 1 noticed that section 88 of the code of civil procedure conferred a right on the person holding the money in which he claimed no interest to file an interpleader suit if two or more persons ..... rival claims is a matter that has to be decided at the trial of the suit to be held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in order 35 of the code of civil procedure.(9) shri gajaria, appearing for defendant no. 1 in the suit, in support of his submission that the suit was not .....

Tag this Judgment!


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