Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 721 results (0.093 seconds)

Jun 05 2003 (HC)

A.V. Purushotam Vs. N.K. Nagaraj

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-05-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Kant417; ILR2003KAR2458; 2004(1)KarLJ635

..... after the aforesaid period is not completely taken away. the court could press into service section 148 of the code of civil procedure or the latter part of order 8 rule 9 cpc as a source of power to receive such written statement. it is needless to point out that filing of ..... the written statement at the earliest. several interlocutory applications were made even before filing of the written statement, such as, applications for rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 1 cpc, applications calling for better particulars under order 6 rules 4 and 5, applications for interrogations, etc. the resultant position being, ..... filing the written statement in accompanying affidavit. the said application filed by the petitioner for permission to file the written statement came to be rejected on the ground that the court has no power to grant time for filing written statement after expiry of 90 days period from the date ..... in-built inconsistency on facts requiring the same to be proved by the plaintiff by adducing evidence. in case, the court, after going through plaint, finds that the facts disclosed therein gives rise to two versions of the foundational facts on which the relief ought to be based, then it ..... date of service of summons on that defendant:provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff's claim:provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 2003 (HC)

C. Arjun Rao Vs. Dr. T. Ramamohana Rao and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-10-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)ALD450; 2004(1)ALT358

..... defendant's application filed in i.a. no. 1593/2001 in o.s. no. 654/1993 on the file of the vii senior civil judge, city civil court, hyderabad to reject the plaint for want of notice under section 80 code of civil procedure. the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff who filed the said suit for recovery of the damages of rs. 5,00,000/- against ..... is stated that the 1st defendant filed i.a. no. 1337/1998 under order vii, rule 11 r/w section 151 code of civil procedure to reject the plaint contending that the criminal court acquitted the plaintiff invoking exception 9 of section 499 ipc and the entire foundation of the case made by the plaintiff rests on the observations made by the ii additional metropolitan sessions ..... by the plaintiff claiming the damages for malicious prosecution is false and fictitious and, therefore, the plaint may be rejected under order vii, rule 11 cpc to avoid harassment. a counter was filed by the plaintiff in the said application and the learned vii senior civil judge, city civil courts, hyderabad by order dated 15/04/1999 dismissed the said i.a. no. 133/98 ..... decided after completion of the trial alone but the plaint cannot be rejected as sought for by the 1st defendant under order vii, rule 11 (d) cpc.13. therefore, i do not see any merits in the civil revision petition and the court below has rightly rejected the said application of the petitioner herein. accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. there shall be no order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2003 (SC)

Liverpool and London S.P. and I Asson. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-20-2003

Reported in : JT2003(9)SC218; 2003(10)SCALE1; (2004)9SCC512

..... court in prahladrai agarwalla and ors. v. smt. renuka pal and ors. : air1982cal259 wherein it has been held that an order under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure refusing to reject a plaint is not a judgment, is not apposite.122. in the said judgment, however, the judgment of this court in shah babulal khimji (supra) was not taken into consideration ..... in discharge of the undertaking of security given by the second respondent. the 1st respondent thereafter took out a notice of motion for rejection of the plaint purported to be under order 7 rule 11(a) of the code of civil procedure inter alia on the ground that the averments contained therein do not disclose a cause of action as the claim of unpaid insurance ..... by this court.135. it is trite that a party should not be unnecessarily harassed in a suit. an order refusing to reject a plaint will finally determine his right in terms of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.136. the idea underlying order 7 rule 11a is that when no cause of action is disclosed, the courts will not unnecessarily ..... 11 of the code of civil procedure, the rights conferred upon the parties are determined one way or the other, stricto sensu it would not be an interlocutory order but having regard to its traits and trappings would be a preliminary judgment.132. it is true that in shah babulal khimji (supra) it is stated that an order rejecting the plaint would be appealable but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 2003 (HC)

CochIn Kagaz Ltd. Vs. Bharath Cartons

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-13-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Ker336

..... maintainable. nothing is, however, stated in that order as to why a petition for review will not lie under order xlvii, rule 1, cpc against a judgment rejecting the plaint for non-payment of the court-fee within the time specified by the court.6. order xlvii, rule 1(1)(a) days that any ..... as his lordship then was, speaking for the bench, observed that when a rejection of the plaint under order vii, rule 11(c) of the code is a decree and the party has a substantive right to appeal under section 96 of the cpc and, in cases where he is able to make out a case for ..... respondent who is the defendant in the suit. but, none appeared .4. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.5. judgment dated 7-3-2003 passed in o.s. no. 328 of 2001 shows that the plaint was rejected under order vii, rule 11, cpc ..... 2003 under sections 149 and 151 and order xlvii, rule 1, cpc praying for a review of the judgment dated 7-3-2003. the learned munsiff summarily dismissed the application for review as per order dated 18-3-2003. aggrieved, this civil revision petition is filed.3. notice was served on the sole ..... orderk.k. denesan, j.1. the simple question that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the court which rejected the plaint for insufficient court-fee can review the order of rejection.2. the above question has arisen in the following manner : the revision petitioner is the plaintiff in o.s. no. 328 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2003 (HC)

Vimal Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Rajendrakumar Shankerbhai Bhagiy ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-05-2003

Reported in : (2003)2GLR1066

..... could have prayed to the court for framing of the preliminary issue in that regard under order 14 rule 2 of the code instead of praying the court for rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure for want of statutory notice under section 58 of the gujarat agricultural produce market act, 1963. 9.2 it was contended on ..... trial judge was set aside by the above observations. it was contended that in the present case also there was no statement in the plaint which would cause the rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure straightaway. 9.3 on the same ground, learned counsel for the caveator also relied upon the decision of this court in ..... dispute covered under section 96 and since the suit was barred under section 167 of the gujarat co-operative societies act, 1961, the plaint was liable to be rejected under provisions of order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. 4. the learned judge heard parties in respect of application exh. 33 at length and came to the conclusion that having regard ..... (2) glr 498. 7. the point which arose during discussion whether in view of the amended provision of the civil procedure code, especially section 115(1) of the code of civil procedure, by amending act no. 46 of 1999, an order rejecting an application for return of plaint under order 7 rule 10 would in the circumstances be subjected to revisional powers of this high court by virtue .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2003 (HC)

Gangadharan Vs. James Joseph

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-06-2003

Reported in : 2003(2)KLT619

..... ) and also in narayanan v. madhavan (1999 (2) klt 84) in which it was held that the remedy available to the party is to move the court rejecting the plaint under section 151 of the civil procedure code for restoration of the plaint. it is true that in abdulkhader v. abdul rahiman (1988 (1) klt 680) another single judge of this court held that neither the ..... to a decree. consequently, dismissal of an appeal as time-barred is also not a decree.' in view of the definition of decree contained in section 2(2) of the code the principle laid down in ratan singh's case (supra) can have no application to the facts of the case. the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the ..... as pw. 1. the learned sub judge found that the delay was not properly explained and that there is inordinate delay in depositing the balance court fee. hence rejected both the applications. this civil revision petition is filed challenging those orders. 5. the revision petitioner/plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale of the suit properties for a total consideration of rs ..... code nor the court fees act enables the court to dismiss a suit on merits for non-payment of court fees and an appeal is maintainable against that order. in abdulkhader's case (supra) it was held that when the plaint is rejected for non-payment of court fee the court can enlarge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2003 (HC)

Royal World Exims and Agencies and anr. Vs. Karur Vysya Bank Limited a ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-24-2003

Reported in : 2003(5)ALD22

..... by the apex court in a. v. enkatasubbaiah naidu v. chellappan, : air2000sc3032 . 11. in view of the fact that the petitioners have already moved the civil court under order vii rule 11 cpc for rejection of the plaint in ia no. 2469 of 2002, any finding given by this court will not only affect the suit but also the result of ia. in view ..... section 15(2) of act 10/1949 has to be decided by the court below in ia no. 2469 of 2002 filed by the petitioners for rejecting the plaint under order vii rule 11 cpc. in the plaint when it is categorically asserted by the 1st respondent-bank that the cause of action arose on 8-6-1998 when it sought permission to challenge ..... article 227 of the constitution. 4. opposing the revision the 1st respondent-bank filed a counter stating that when once the petitioners filed ia under order vii rule 11 cpc for rejection of the plaint, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the constitution of india and the revision has to be dismissed on this ground alone. the ..... a complaint to the superintendent of police, guntur. on such complaint the police registered a crime no. 43/97 for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 ipc and ordered for investigation. the 1st petitioner also filed a complaint to the banking ombudsman, hyderabad in complaint no. 233/97-98, which was contested by the 1st respondent-bank .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2003 (HC)

Siddalingeshwar and ors. Vs. Virupaxgouda and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-03-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Kant407; ILR2003KAR2559; 2004(2)KarLJ28

..... file any written statement but filed an application (i.a.2) dated 7.8.2000 under order 7 rule 11 read with order 23 rule 3a of cpc, for rejection of the plaint on three grounds : (i) that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file such a suit; (ii) that suit did not disclose any cause of ..... basangouda, filed a suit against his two sons (virupaxgouda and veerangouda) and his wife (basawa) in 60/1994 on the file of the civil judge (sr.division) gadag for partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the joint family properties. he alleged that there was no partition till then ..... a party, who challenges the recording of the compromise, to question the validity thereof while preferring an appeal against the decree, section 96(3) of the code shall not be a bar to such an appeal because section 96(3) is applicable to cases where the factum of compromise or agreement is not in dispute ..... by rule 3a in respect of institution of a separate suit for setting aside a decree on basis of a compromise.........xxxxsection 96(3) of the code says that no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the court with the consent of the parties. rule 1a(2) has been introduced saying ..... refusing to record an agreement, compromise or satisfaction, was deleted. rule 1a was inserted to the following effect.(1) where any order is made under this code against a party and thereupon any judgment is pronounced against such party and a decree is drawn up, such party may, in an appeal against the decree, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 2003 (HC)

Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P. and ors. Vs. R.P.G. Netcom Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-21-2003

Reported in : 2003(27)PTC452(Del)

..... instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.(2) for the purpose of sub-section (1), a 'district court having jurisdiction shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the code of civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at ..... govern the disposal of is no. 5186/2001 filed by the defendant under order 7 rule 10 and order 7 rule 11(b)(c) cpc seeking return of the plaint for being presented in the proper court having territorial jurisdiction.2. the plaintiffs are companies incorporated in usa and carrying on business of film production ..... claimed.3. after service of summons, the defendant had earlier filed an application ia. no. 7165/2000 under order 7 rule 11(a) cpc for rejection of plaint. but the said is was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application under order 7 ..... copyright act and the suit is, prima facie, not barred by any law, the application under order 7 rule 10 for return of plaint to proper court is liable to be rejected.9. it is ordered accordingly.s. no. 607/2002list the matter on 24.9.2003. ..... , cpc. the defendant has now filed ia. 5186/2001 praying therein that plaint be returned for presentation to the proper court having territorial jurisdiction. it is contended that none of the plaintiffs reside or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2003 (SC)

Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and anr. Vs. Thallappaka Ananthacharyu ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-10-2003

Reported in : AIR2003SC3290; 2003(6)ALD72(SC); 2003(6)ALT40(SC); JT2004(6)SC425; 2003(7)SCALE352; (2003)8SCC134

..... that apart from certiorari, this is the first time where a high court has issued a writ, against a civil court, prohibiting it from proceeding with a civil suit instituted before it. he submitted that there are elaborate provisions in the civil procedure code for rejecting a plaint and/or deciding questions of maintainability and for trying issues of its own jurisdiction as preliminary issues. mr. venugopal ..... be noted that in this case it had been held that the writ of prohibition did not prevent the trial court from returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court under order 7 rule 10 of the civil procedure code.9. on the other hand mr. mishra submitted that article 226 of the constitution of india makes no distinction with respect to the ..... a power to supervise decisions of tribunals by issue of appropriate writs and directions and that the exercise of that power cannot be defeated by technical consideration of form and procedure. it was held that the high courts must however observe the principles which regulate the exercise such jurisdiction. it was held that before a writ of certiorari can t ..... of the inams deputy tahsildar, chittoor. it must be remembered that in the civil procedure code there are sufficient provisions, particularly order 7 rule 11 and order 14 rule 2, which give to the civil court powers to decide its own jurisdiction and questions regarding maintainability of the suit. the civil court is also competent to decide whether a suit before its barred on .....

Tag this Judgment!

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