Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 283 results (0.076 seconds)

Feb 12 1992 (HC)

Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Vs. Electromast Industries and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-12-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR338

..... directed against the order of the trial court dismissing the application filed by defendant under order vii, rule 11, code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint. it was stated in the application that the suit filed by the plaintiff in an abuse of the process of ..... law and in fact damages have been claimed in the suit which, on the face of it are meritless and time barred.2. the jurisdiction of the civil ..... plaint did not disclose any contract between the plaintiff and the defendants and no amount was due and payable to the plaintiff from the defendants. the objection with regard to under-valuation of the suit was also taken. plaintiffs also filed an application under order viii rule (sic) code of civil procedure ..... as well as reply to the application under order vii rule 11, code of civil procedure wherein it was stated that the defendants instead of filing written statement, filed various miscellaneous applications in order ..... defendants as it was of the view that all the objections raised by the defendants in the application under order vii rule 11, code of civil procedure, can be taken by them in the written statement and these can be decided after framing preliminary issues. this order is being challenged by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 1992 (HC)

J.S. Raghupathi Rao Vs. Smt. P. Ramadevi

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-20-1992

Reported in : 1993(1)ALT332

eswara prasad, j.1. the court below rejected the plaint on the ground that the original suit agreement was not filed and only a xerox copy was sought to be filed alongwith the plaint. under order 7, rule 11 cpc, a plaint can be rejected only in cases enumerated in rule 11 and not otherwise. non-filing of the suit agreement is not one of the grounds on which, a plaint can be rejected.2. the petitioner submitted in the lower court that the original agreement of sale was misplaced and was not traceable and hence xerox copy was filed along with plaint. the learned judge was not correct in insisting on an explanation as to how the document was lost and as to what are the efforts made to trace the document. the petitioner stated in resubmitting the plaint that the original agreement was lost and is not traceable for the present. no further explanation can be submitted by the petitioner. when the original is not traceable, it is open to the petitioner, to file xerox copy and the matter has to be dealt with at the trial of the suit.3. the cma is allowed and the lower court is directed to register the suit. the xerox copy of the agreement can be considered, subject to proof and relevancy which will be decided at the trial of the suit. no costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1992 (HC)

Tarun Chopra and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-30-1992

Reported in : 1992(23)DRJ285; 1992RLR321

..... of plaint is deemed to be included in the definition of 'decree'. section 2 of the code of civil procedure reads as follows: '(2)'decree', means the formal ..... rejection of a plaint. ii. the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases. (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.'in rahmath bi and another v. state wakf board : air1982mad202 the view has been expressed that non-compliance would be covered by order 7 rule ll(d) of the code of civil procedure ..... expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matter in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. it shall 1be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint ..... . in this connection the madras high court has relied upon various judgment of the high courts and also of the supreme court.(7) the rejection ..... it this situation, thereforee, an appeal would lie against the impugned order under section 96 of the code of civil procedure. whether or not the order is illegal or such a jurisdiction should be exercised by the trial court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1992 (HC)

Yallurkar Kisan Sidray Vs. Returning Officer

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-16-1992

Reported in : ILR1993KAR1671; 1992(3)KarLJ423

..... ]3scr369 (supra). if an election petition does not disclose cause of action, it can be dismissed summarily at the threshold of the proceeding under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. if an election petition can be summarily rejected at the threshold of the proceeding we do not see any reason as to why the same cannot be ..... same even after settlement of issues. .....in devnarayan ramasumar tewari v. state of bombay (now gujarat) : air1963guj79 (supra) a learned single judge held that an order rejecting the plaint after the issues had been framed was clearly wrong. in coming to that conclusion the learned judge placed reliance on order 5 rule 5 and order 14 of rule 1, ..... may issue summons to the defendants but merely because the summons are issued, the defendant's right to raise preliminary objection for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action is not affected. if a plaint or an election petition does not disclose any cause of action, it does not stand to reason as to why the ..... producing evidence when the proceedings can be disposed of on the preliminary objection. there is basic difference between a suit and an election petition. a suit is initiated by a plaint, by a party, against the defendant and generally the dispute is confined to the parties whereas an election petition raised dispute relating to election which affects and involves the entire .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 1992 (HC)

Bhagwandas Goyal Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-12-1992

Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ998

..... on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, but even that would not take any difference. under this provision the court would have rejected the plaint instead of dismissing ..... have been directed to have been returned instead of dismissing the suit. even this contention cannot be accepted. return of plaint is contemplated only by rule 10 of order 7 of the code of civil procedure, under which provision a case like the one at hand is not covered. at the best rule 11 of order 7, c.p.c. could have been relied ..... be dismissed unless it is instituted within six months from the date the accrual of the alleged cause of action.'the provision is pari materia with s. 80 of the code of civil procedure.5. in bihari chowdhary v. state of bihar, air 1984 sc 1043 their lordships held:'a suit against the government or a public officer, to which the requirement of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1992 (HC)

Radhika Konel Parekh Vs. Konel Parekh

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-12-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Mad90; I(1994)DMC598; (1993)IMLJ163

..... 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 cl. 12 of ..... even though the suit is kept alive; (6) an order rejecting an application for a judgment on admission under 0. 12, rule 6; (7) an order refusing to add necessary parties in a suit under section 92 of the code of civil procedure; (8) an order varying or amending a decree; (9) ..... jurisdictionexercised by the single judge while passing his judgment provided as appeal is not barred by any statute (for example. section 100a of the code of civil procedure, 1908) and provided the conditions laid down by clause 15 itself are fulfilled. 13. since the supreme court has already declared the law ..... the partyconcerned must be direct and immediaterather than indirect or remote. for instance,where the trial judge in a suit under order 37of the code of civil procedure refuses thedefendant leave to defend the suit, the orderdirectly affects the defendant because he losesa valuable right to defend the suit and hisremedy ..... rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy. the concept of a judgment as defined by the code of civil procedure seems to be rather narrow and the limitations engrafted by sub-section (2) of section 2 cannot be physically imported into the definition of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1992 (HC)

HussaIn Khan Vs. Yadavalli Choultry (Trust), Kothapeta and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-15-1992

Reported in : AIR1993AP323; 1993(1)ALT31

..... suit falls within the purview of article 59 of the limitation act and, therefore, time has run against the appellant plaintiff, and rejected the plaint. as against such rejection, the present appeal is filed.4. sri t. veerabhadrayya, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the suit filed before the ..... v. bhaskaran, : air1986ker49 and piarelal v. bhagwati prasad, : air1969mp35 strengthen my view to hold that earlier proceedings initiated by the appellant under section 47 cpc before the executing court, would no doubt operate as res judicata against the appellant herein and, therefore, he is barred from initiating fresh proceedings any more on ..... of 1992 (c.r.r. no. 30/92) on the file of the court of the vacation civil judge (i additional district judge), guntur.2. the appellant herein presented the plaint in the above suit before the lower court seeking a declaration that the decree passed in o. s. ..... may observe that the appellant has, time and again, chosen to circumvent the process of eviction order standing against him, passed by a competent civil court, by hook or crook. this conduct of the appellant, 1 may say that the suit filed is vexatious and gross abuse of process ..... on 6-5-1992. having failed to obtain favourable orders, the appellant herein has made one more attempt by presenting the suit before the vacation civil judge, guntur, which wasrejected on the ground of maintainability.6. admittedly, a decree was passed in favour of the 1st respondent herein. though .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1992 (HC)

Harbhajan Singh Vs. Mohan Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-13-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR482

..... . it has been held as under :-'order vi, rule 14, civil procedure code (hereinfter referred to as the code) requires that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any). a plaint can also be signed by any person, duly authorised ..... on 4th july, 1977.7. i do not find any substance in this submission irregularity in the signature or verification of the plaint is a mere defect of procedure which can be rectified at a later stage. an omission or mistake in signatures is not fatal to the suit and the same ..... accepted. moreover, it is a defect which can amount to an irregularity and can be ignored for rejecting the plaint. the legal position is, that want of verification has not the effect of making the plaint void. it merely amounts to an irregularity. so far as the question of signing the pleading is ..... plaint (sic) a mere defect of procedure. so far as this court is concerned; a learned single judge of this court in smt. mukhtiar kaur v. smt. gulab kaur, (1977) 79 p. l. r. 185. has taken a view that such a defect amounts to a mere irregularity and can be ignored for rejecting the plaint ..... by the plaintiff, in case the plaintiff is absent. it is not disputed that gurdial kaur had not signed the plaint, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1992 (HC)

Guru Ravi Das Jainti Samorah Samiti Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-04-1992

Reported in : 1993(26)DRJ90

..... this ground alone the plaint is liable to be rejected. (9) the other ground on which this suit is to be rejected is that this suit for declaration is against the union of india and delhi administration, but no notice under section 80 civil procedure code has been served as ..... the plaintiff has paid fixed court fee of rs 19.50. there is no mention that any notice under section 80 civil procedure code has been given to the union of india or to delhi administration before institution of the present suit. there is also ..... they cannot be allowed to demolish the property without giving proper notice to the plaintiff. from the averments made in the plaint it is apparent that union of india, delhi administration and delhi development authority are threatening to demolish and dispossess the plaintiff, ..... . even no notice under section 53b of the delhi development act has been served on the delhi development authority before filing this suit against the delhi development authority and on this ground also the suit against union of india, delhi development authority and delhi administration is not maintainable. under these circumstances, i reject the plaint ..... required under the provisions of the said section. no application has been filed seeking leave of the court for filing the suit without service of notice under section 80 cpc .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1992 (HC)

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Ota Kandla Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-28-1992

Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR381; (1992)94BOMLR257

..... that the application for grant of time be dismissed and the suit be decreed under order vii, rule 5 of the code of civil procedure. thus, the court rejected the defendant's application for grant of time and passed an order on the plaint that the defendant had not filed written statement and the plaintiff was required to prove his case by affidavit and the ..... 6th july, 1990?5. in order to appreciate the rival contentions, and answer the questions posed above, the relevant provisions of the code of civil procedure are reproduced below :order viii, rule 5 :(1) every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken ..... in the plaint, where the defendant has not filed a written statement, and further, provision is made for drawing up of a decree in ..... statement, an allegation of fact. the consequence is that the allegation of fact in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted. more significant for the present purpose are sub-rule (2), (3) and (4) of rule 5 introduced by 1976 amendments to the code of civil procedure. discretion is given to court to pronounce a judgment on the basis of the facts contained .....

Tag this Judgment!


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