Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 586 results (0.146 seconds)

Aug 19 2002 (HC)

Shivrudra Shivling Pailwan and ors. Vs. Prakash Maharudhra Pailwan and ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-19-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR48; 2002(6)BomCR546; (2003)2BOMLR167; 2003(1)MhLj299

..... not pertain to any point relating to the execution of the compromise decree. being so, question of invoking power under order vii, rule 11(d) of civil procedure code for rejection of the said plaint does not arise at all.8. indeed, the point of non-maintainability of the suit is sought to be raised by referring to the terms of the compromise decree and ..... between the parties and therefore considering the provisions of section 47 read with order vii, rule 11(d) of civil procedure code the plaint is liable to be rejected.4. referring to clauses 4 and 10 in the compromise decree passed on 19th march 1987 in regular civil suit no. 24 of 1987 between the parties to the proceedings, it was sought to be contended that ..... therefore, it is a case fit to invoke powers under order vii, rule 11(d) of civil procedure code and to reject the plaint.5. undoubtedly, order vii, rule 11(d) of civil procedure code provides that the plaint shall be rejected in case when the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. the object behind the said provision of law is to avoid ..... the parties. rule. by consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. the petitioner challenges the order dated 21st june 2002 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint under order 7, rule 11(d) of the civil procedure code.3. it is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the suit has been filed for execution of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2002 (HC)

Eagle Copters Ltd. Vs. Azal Azerbaijan Aviation Ltd. and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-01-2002

Reported in : AIR2002Bom284; 2002(3)BomCR758

..... is improper and they must do correct valuation and pay court-fees accordingly. 19. as far as chamber summons taken out by defendant no. 2 for rejection of plaint under order 7, rule 11, of cpc is concerned, it has to be said that from the pleadings it is evident that plaintiffs do have a cause of action against defendant no. 2 also ..... chamber summons being chamber summons no. 162 of 2002 in which they have come out with the case that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against them and therefore, the plaint be rejected under order 7. rule 11 of the civil procedure code 1908. they have also pointed out that in the suit no relief is claimed against defendant no. 2. 13. as ..... and nature of claim made by the plaintiffs against the defendant no. 1. therefore, i see no substance in the chamber summons taken out by defendant no. 2 for rejection of the plaint under order 7, rule 11, c.p.c. 1908. in view of the aforesaid discussions, following order is passed. notice of motion no. 85 of 2002 is dismissed. chamber ..... far as notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff is concerned, defendant no.2 have denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the plaint and in the affidavit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2002 (HC)

Dcm Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kala and Co. and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-16-2002

Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)245; [2002]112CompCas457(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT700; 2002(64)DRJ267

..... , 1998. the plaintiffs have contested this application. 4. admittedly, the defendants have not filed the written statement. for deciding the application under order 7 rule 11 cpc for rejection of plaint, the averments made in the plaint are taken to be true. the plaintiffs have claimed that the post-dated cheque dated 14th november, 1995 for rs. 99,863/- was handed over by defendants ..... sharda aggarwal, j. 1. this order shall dispose of an application moved by defendants under order 7 rule 11 cpc for rejection of plaint. briefly the facts of the case are that plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of rs. 44,19,573/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the ..... ' application bearing ia.no. 99/99 (order 38 rules 1 & 2 cpc) and ia.no. 7084/99 (order 26 rules 9 cpc) respectively. the defendant also moved an application (ia.no. 11936/99) under order 7 rule 11 cpc read with section 151 cpc and section 3 of the limitation act for rejection of plaint. it is this application which is under consideration. 3. the defendants ..... in their application alleged that on the averments made in the plaint, plaintiffs' suit is barred by law having not been filed within the stipulated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 2002 (HC)

Laxmi Narayan Soni Vs. Roop Chand Soni and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-17-2002

Reported in : 99(2002)DLT186

..... malicious prosecution against the defendant. the defendant had filed a complaint under sections 406/420, ipc alleging that the petitioner wanted to cause injury to him whereupon the same was ..... sessions judge on 27.4. 1995. the said contention was raised by the defendant, opposite party. the district judge by reason of the impugned judgment rejected the plaint holding :'on a perusal of the copy of this order of the court of sessions, which has been placed on record, it is apparent that this ..... to maintainability of suit where for factual foundation may be based in the written statement and not on the statements made in the plaint the provisions of order 7 rule 11, cpc could not have been taken recourse to. a suit may be dismissed on a preliminary issue and a decree is to be ..... s.b. sinha, c.j.1. this civil revision is directed against the order dated 31.7.1998 passed by the additional district judge in suit no. 521/95 whereby and whereunder the court in purported exercise of jurisdiction under order 7 rule 11, cpc rejected the plaint filed by the petitioner wherein he claimed damages for ..... shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from the date of communication of this order. the civil revision is allowed.as nobody appears for the respondent there shall not be any order as to costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2002 (HC)

K.S. Geetha Vs. Stanleybuck and Dr. P. Sedhu Ammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-12-2002

Reported in : (2002)2MLJ823

..... of the matter, this court desires to consider that issue first, before considering the other issues that arises for consideration.9. order vii rule 11 of code of civil procedure deals with rejection of plaint. once the plaint is rejected, then obviously nothing is pending before the court. that order is formal expression of an adjudication, which so far as regards the court expressing it, ..... herein. the above revision has been preferred against the order allowing i.a.1094 of 2000, petition filed under order vii rule 11 read with section 151 of code of civil procedure rejecting the plaint.2. petitioner as plaintiff filed the above suit against the respondents herein on the file of subordinate court, coimbatore, praying the court to grant a decree for specific ..... pending disposal of the suit, respondents/ defendants filed an application in i.a.1094 of 2000 under order vii rule 11 read with section 151 of code of civil procedure, praying the court to reject the plaint for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in respect of the said application. the defendants disputed having delivered possession of entire extent of 88.86 acres ..... clearly ruled that both from the section and those decisions it is clear that only appeal will lie against rejection of plaint and it is not limited to such cases wherein the plaint was rejected for the reasons stated under order vii, rule 11 of code of civil procedure.in a recent ruling of this court reported in (nesammal and another v. edward and another) a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2002 (HC)

Ram Chatterjee and anr. Vs. Smt. Tapati Mukherjee and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-06-2002

Reported in : (2002)3CALLT208(HC)

..... of murder by the husband was prayed for, but also the damage and compensation based on tort also was prayed. under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure, the court enjoins the power to reject the plaint when it does not disclose any cause of action. in the instant case, it appears that there are different cause of actions to file the suit ..... learned assistant district judge, 7th court at alipore, district south 24-parganas in the said title suit whereby prayer for rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure filed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 was rejected. this revision application raised a very nice legal question about interpretation of the statutory provision as laid down under section 25 ..... of the opposite party that in adjudicating the application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, the averments in the plaint must be considered in its face value and when the plaint prima facie satisfies the test of cause of action, the plaint will not be rejected. reliance is placed to the judgments passed in the case british airways v. art works export ..... , on several prayers and with different facts. for rejection of a plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the civil procedure code, the plaint prima facie to be considered for determining the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 2002 (HC)

State Bank of Travancore, Udhagamandalam, Rep. by Its Manager Vs. A.R. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-03-2002

Reported in : (2002)2MLJ312

..... stamped with court fees. order 7 rule 13 of the code of civil procedure, referred to above, makes it clear that the rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds for want of sufficient ..... , referred to above, makes it clear that the court fees determined on the plaint in the suit shall be mutatis mutandis in respect of the memorandum of appeal, cross objections, etc.5.2 order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure empowers the court to reject the plaint if the plaint in the suit or the memorandum of grounds in the appeal are not sufficiently ..... court fees shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. if the principle behind ..... . the relevant provisions under the code of civil procedure, which govern the situation of non payment of required court fees, are order 7 rule 11 c.p.c. read with section 16 of the tamil nadu court fees and suits valuation act, 1955, which are referred to as follows:order 7 rule 11 c.p.c.:- rejection of plaint shall be rejected in the following cases .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 2002 (HC)

G. Murugan and ors. Vs. Manickam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-23-2002

Reported in : AIR2003Mad129

..... case of nesammal v. edward, , wherein, the learned judge of. this court (s. s. subramani, j.), has held that since the order, rejecting the plaint, is a decree under the code of civil procedure, revision is not maintainable. even if the plaint is rejected on some other grounds not covered by order 7, rule 11 of c.p.c., the remedy is only an appeal under section ..... 96 of code of civil procedure. that is the law declared by this court in the case of r. shanmughavelu pillai v. r. karuppannan ambalam, air 1976 ..... not a decree and therefore, revision would lie. on the contrary, the learned advocate for the respondent would submit that the order, rejecting the plaint, is only a decree and only an appeal would he, under s. 96 of cpc.16. both the learned advocates for the petitioners and the respondent relied upon few decisions to support their contentions, which would be referred ..... lie and not a revision and that therefore, the crp is not maintainable.12. the points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition are :--i. whether the order, rejecting the plaint, is a decree or order and if so, whether the civil revision petition is maintainable?ii. whether the suit, filed by the minors, questioning the validity of the sale deed beyond three .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 2002 (HC)

G. Murugan, Vs. Manickam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-25-2002

Reported in : (2003)1MLJ56

..... court (s.s. subramani, j.), has held that since the order, rejecting the plaint, is a decree under the code of civil procedure, revision is not maintainable,. even if the plaint is rejected on some other grounds not covered by order & rule 11 of cpc, the remedy is only an appeal under section 96 of code of civil procedure. that is the law declared by this court in the case of ..... not a decree and therefore, revision would lie. on the contrary, the learned advocate for the respondent would submit that the order, rejecting the plaint, is only a decree and only an appeal would lie, under section 96 of cpc.16.both the learned advocates for the petitioners and the respondent relied upon few decisions to support their contentions, which would be referred ..... lie and not a revision and that therefore, the crp is not maintainable.12.the points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition are:-i.whether the order, rejecting the plaint, is a decree or order and if so, whether the civil revision petition is maintainable? ii.whether the suit, filed by the minors, questioning the validity of the sale deed beyond three ..... .25.for the reasons stated above, the application in cmp.no.5791/2002 to condone the delay is dismissed and the unnumbered civil revision petition is also dismissed on both the grounds (i) that as against the rejection of the plaint, revision will not lie and only an appeal will lie (ii) that the suit brought out by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 2002 (HC)

Gangdas S/O Moujibhai Patel Vs. Harshvardhan S/O Balkrushna Bhadupotey ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-14-2002

Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR127; 2003(4)BomCR712; 2003(1)MhLj203

..... he has denied other averments made by the plaintiffs.5. during the pendency of the said suit, the defendant has filed an application under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint, mainly on the ground that the maharashtra rent control act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') is not applicable to the open lands and, therefore, ..... non-applicants/original plaintiffs have filed regular civil suit no. 170/2000 against the applicant/original defendant for the possession ..... they are relevant for the disposal of the present civil revision application are as under :the ..... of the parties.2. the present civil revision application is directed against the order dated 8-7-2002 passed by the learned joint civil judge, junior division, gondia in regular civil suit no. 170/2000, whereby the application filed by the applicant under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint came to be rejected.3. a few facts insofar as .....

Tag this Judgment!


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