Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 1993 Page 1 of about 320 results (0.094 seconds)

Apr 21 1993 (HC)

Balkar Singh Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-21-1993

Reported in : (1993)104PLR389

..... averments made therein do not show that the suit is barred by any law. under order 7, rule 11 (a) of the code of civil procedure, the court is empowered to rejected the plaint if the same does not disclose the cause of action. when a suit is filed, the court is to see whether the same ..... for the bank has vohomently argued that provisions of the act do not bar the filing of a civil suit.' he also made a reference to order 7, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, to contend that the plaint does not contain any averment to show that the suit barred by law.4. after hearing learned ..... for the respondent has not been able to satisfy me as to how the suit under order 34 of the code of civil procedure, would be maintainable, his only contention is that neither the code of civil procedure nor the provisions of the act, bar the filing of such a suit i fail to understand that when a ..... contains necessary allegations, disclosing the cause of action, and if there is nothing, then the court can reject the plaint. in the present case, ..... . he having defaulted, the bank became entitled to recover the amount. the bank had two options with it, (i) to file a civil suit under order 34 of the code of civil procedure, or (ii) to proceed to recover the amount under the act. the bank chose to proceed under the act. sub section (1) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1993 (HC)

B. Hanumanth Reddy Vs. B. Lakshmamma and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-11-1993

Reported in : 1993(3)ALT708

..... of the order of the learned principal subordinate judge, ranga reddy district, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under order 7 rule 11 of civil procedure code, to reject the plaint in o.s. no. 514/90 in view of order 23 rule 3-a of cpc.2. respondents 3, 4, 8 and father of respondents 5 to ..... apart from the properties covered by the compromise decree. the order under revision is set aside and the court below is directed to reject the plaint so far as the plaint schedule properties which are covered by the earlier compromise decree are concerned and to proceed with the suit if there are any other ..... suit, filed la. no. 337/92 praying for rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11(d) in view of order 23 rule 3-a of cpc. the learned judge dismissed the application, holding that the suit is maintainable and that the plaint cannot be rejected.4. sri veerabhadraiah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted ..... in view of the rival contentions of the learned counsel, the question for consideration is whether the suit is maintainable?7. rule 3 of order 23 cpc deals with compromise of suits and provides for passing of a decree by compromise or agreement or satisfaction, on the court being satisfied that the suit ..... proviso to rule 3 of order 23, or an appeal under section 96(1) of the code, and he can question the validity of the compromise in view of rule 1-a of order 43 of the code. it was further held that if the agreement or the compromise itself is fraudulent, then it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 1993 (HC)

Ashoka Builders and Promoters and anr. Vs. Edward Keventer (Successors ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-05-1993

Reported in : 51(1993)DLT421; 1993(26)DRJ533; (1994)107PLR29

..... i.a. no. 12771/92 and 12770/92 under section 9, order 2, rule 2, and order 7, rule 11 read with section 151 civil procedure code for rejecting the plaint as barred by law under order 2, rule 2 civil procedure code and defendant no. i took this plea in the written statement filed by it in para no.4 of the preliminary objections. (2) the argument ..... and 3 being i.a.no. 12771/92 and 12770/92 under section 9, order 2, rule 2, and order 7, rule 11 read with section 151 civil procedure code for rejecting the plaint as barred by law under order 2, rule 2 civil procedure code and the request made by defendant no. 1 in para 4 of the preliminary objections in the written statement for dismissing the ..... consideration in accordance with law. according to the learned counsel, this older does not help the applicants/defendants in arguing that the application moved under order 2, rule 2 civil procedure code was rejected earlier and on that ground this suit for specific performance is not maintainable. the learned counsel submitted that the relief of specific performance is a different and distinct relief from ..... plaint of the plaintiffs in view of the provisions of order 2, rule 2 civil procedure code and order, 7, rule ii read with section 151 cpc. both these applications are, thereforee, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1993 (HC)

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Nehru Place Hotels Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-29-1993

Reported in : 49(1993)DLT711; 1993(25)DRJ286

..... of the plaint against the said appellant on the ground that the plain does not disclose any cause of action against it and there ..... the suit.(15) the dda filed is 4985/90 under order 7 rule 11 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that no prior notice bad been served on the dda as required under section 53b of the act ..... . the dda also filed another application being is 6058/91) under order 39 rules i and 2 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure ..... for seeking injunction against respondent no. 1 restraining it from giving possession or parting with possession of any portion of the blocks 'e' and 'f' till respondent no. 1 is given the occupancy certificate/completion certificate.(16) the appellant desu also filed is 5864/90 under order 7 rule 11 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure for rejection ..... suit no. 1800 of 199h. by this order the learned single judge dismissed the applications of the defendants (appellants herein) seeking rejection of the plaint and allowed the applications of the plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) and granted interim mandatory injunction requiring the appellant to issue occupancy .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1993 (HC)

Keshav Metal Works and anr. Vs. Jitender Kumar Verma

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-15-1993

Reported in : 1994IAD(Delhi)81; 1994(28)DRJ206; 1994RLR126

..... contended that in order to decide whether the pillion deserves rejection or not the court has to restrict itself to the 'plaint' alone, order 7 rule 11, cpc, which is reproduced as indicate stipulates the circumstances in which the plaint can be rejected:- 'rejection of plaint : the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : a) where it does ..... the 'pleadings generally' and order 7 refers to 'plaint' alone. under order 7 rule 11, cpc, it is the plaint which has to be rejected and not the pleadings. thereforee, it is the plaint which assumes significance. it is prima facie the reading of the plaint which will show the cause of action. order 7 ..... of madhav rao scindia (supra) the supreme court observed that the lack of material facts would mean want of cause of action and would result in rejection of the plaint.(7) mr. lekhi, also placed reliance on the case of mithilesh kumur v. r. venkataraman and ors. reported in : [1988]1scr525 , ..... by surprise while evidence is being recorded. this strict rule of pleadings will not apply to a petition under the delhi rent control act because civil procedure code does not strictly apply to these pleadings.(24) now, so far as merits are concerned, the learned addl. rent controller took note of the ..... that : 'it has to be appreciated that the point of defense, which has been willfully or deliberated abandoned by a party in a civil case at a crucial stage, when it was most relevant or material cannot be allowed to be tajeb kater at the sweet will of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1993 (HC)

Chandra Kumar Phulbadhiya Vs. Jaidev Nainani and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-09-1993

Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ300

..... has come up in revision feeling aggrieved by an order of the trial court directing his application under order 6, rule 17, civil procedure code seeking amendment in the plaint to be rejected.2. it appears that the plaintiff has in his favour an agreement dated 12-3-1985 to sell the suit property executed by ..... section 16(c) of the specific relief act. a preliminary issue was framed. at that stage, the plaintiff sought for leave to amend the plaint by incorporating an averment as to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the agreement. their lordships observed that no new cause ..... registrar and the time spent in prosecuting those proceedings was liable to be excluded from limitation for filing the suit for specific performance before the civil court.4. such a contention on the point of limitation as has been raised before this court was not raised before the trial court. ..... changed the nature of the suit, it should have been allowed because the basic facts would remain the same as were alleged in the original plaint. it is also submitted that between 15-7-1987 and 16-3-1992 the plaintiff was prosecuting proceedings before the registrar of co- operative ..... the relief of specific performance of contract was not prayed for. on 29-6- 1992, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the necessary pleadings and relief of specific performance. the trial court formed an opinion that the proposed amendment not only changed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1993 (HC)

Narendra Kumar JaIn and Another Vs. Sukumar Chand JaIn and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-16-1993

Reported in : AIR1994All1

..... has submitted that sub-clause (a) of r. ii of 0.7 would be applicable in the present case and under this sub-clause the plaint could be rejected and the trial court's judgment is sought to be justified on the terms of the said sub-clause. it was further contended that the ..... the temple of property.8. thereafter the defendants seem to have filed an application purported to be undero. 7, r. ii. c.p.c. for rejection of the plaint. it was stated in this application that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs cannot be granted to them under s. 14 of the act. the defendants ..... reliefs claimed by the plaintiff.34. the application of the defendants for rejection of the plaint under 0.7, r. 11, c. ..... allowing them to amend the plaint and claim the reliefs which could be granted under s. 14 of the act. for not articulating the reliefs properly the plaint could not be rejected under o.7, r. 11(a), civil p.c. does not contain any provision by which a plaint can be rejected for any defect in the ..... 1. this is a civil first appeal against the judgment of the iii addl.district judge, meerut dated 28-1-1992 whereby court below was allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondents under o. 7, r. 11, c.p.c. and has rejected the plaint under the said order. the plaintiff-appellants are aggrieved against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1993 (HC)

The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Through Its Chairman Vs. Ran ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-05-1993

Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR20; (1994)96BOMLR757

..... produce marketing (regulation) act, 1963. the respondent-plaintiff had, in fact, sought to withdraw the suit, but the court had rejected that application and had rejected the plaint itself in exercise of the power vested under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. the legality of this order was doubted before this court, but the point appears to be quite clear. in p ..... instituted without proper compliance of the requirements of notice as enacted under section 80 of the code of civil procedure was unsustainable and as such a suit must be deemed to have not been instituted at all.'it was, therefore, held that the trial court could properly reject the plaint under order vii, rule 11 of c.p.c. and that only could be the ..... samar singh v. kedar nath, : air1987sc1926 , the question as to at which stage of a proceeding, the court could pass an order under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. the question had arisen in an election petition and the respondents had appeared in that matter, raising several contentions, one of which was that the cause of action was not ..... declaration or otherwise.'this was in the context of institution of a suit against the state, prior to the expiry of the notice period contemplated by section 80 of the code of civil procedure. when a similar question had arisen before the learned single judge of the andhra pradesh high court, he concluded, on the basis of the aforesaid observations:-'these observations admit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1993 (HC)

Karnataka Bank Vs. T. Gopalakrishna Rao

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-14-1993

Reported in : [1994(68)FLR881]; ILR1994KAR230; 1994(1)KarLJ304

..... ordershivashankar bhat, j. 1. rejection of an application to reject the plaint under order vvi rule 11 of the code of civil procedure is challenged by the defendant in crp no. 1053/93. the defendant is as bank kin the private sector. plaintiff (respondent) is a general manager in the said bank. plaint alleges that the plaintiff received a ..... the learned munsiff held that there is no particular legal bar against the maintainability of the suit as stated in order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure and that the question of the maintainability of the suit on other grounds 'is a matter to be decided at the time of disposal of the ..... not exhaustive of the grounds to reject a plaint (vide : rada kishen v. wali mohammed air 1956 hyderabad 133). 4. ..... to consider the prayer to stay the disciplinary proceedings. anyhow, discussion on this aspect has become academic, in view of my order rejecting the plaint. the order made by the court of the civil judge in m. a. no. 29 of 1993 is accordingly set aside. 22. in the result, both the ..... vii rules 11 (d) cpc is a bar referred to in such legal provisions like section 80 cpc or the law of limitation. 3. the above view assumes that order vii rule 11 cpc is exhaustive of the circumstances in which a plaint has to be rejected. but, order vii rule 11 cpc is held to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1993 (HC)

State of Karnataka Vs. Eastern Medicals

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-23-1993

Reported in : ILR1993KAR1401; 1992(2)KarLJ164

..... 's cause of action is against a government and the plaint does not show that notice under section 80 of the code of civil procedure claiming relief was served in terms of the said section it would be the duty of the court to reject the plaint recording an order to that effect with reasons for the ..... order. in such a case the court should not embark upon a trial of all the issues involved and such rejection ..... contention. the supreme court in state of maharastra v. chander kant, : [1977]1scr993 , has clearly held 'that the language section 80 of the code of civil procedure is that a notice is to be given against not only the government but also against the public officer in respect of any act purporting to be ..... would not preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint ..... section 64 of the act and section 80 of the c.p.c. hence, the trial court ought to have rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11 (d) of the c.p.code. in that event, it would have been open to the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit on the same .....

Tag this Judgment!


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