Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-08-2004
Reported in : ILR2004KAR3350; 2004(4)KarLJ257
..... . i find the order is faulty for more than one reason. the non-payment of deficit court fee within the time prescribed under order 7, rule 11 of the cpc, would entail rejection of plaint. the order of return is improper.4. on the agricultural lands under section 7 of the karnataka court fees and suits valuation act, the court fee has to ..... valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is impermissible and the court fee is to be paid on the basis of the pecuniary jurisdictional values stated in the plaint, accordingly, directed the payment of deficit court fee on or before 17-9-2003 and also directed that if court fee is not paid, the ..... k. sreedhar rao, j. 1. the civil judge (senior division), gangavathi passed the impugned order. the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title in respect of agricultural land in sy. no. 192, measuring 20 acres .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-27-2004
Reported in : 2004(6)ALD243; 2004(6)ALT454
..... other reliefs.4. soon after the appearance, the respondents i.e., defendants 1 to 6 filed the present application under rule 11(a) of the order 7 of code of civil procedure to reject the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the suit as has been filed in pursuance of the order of the supreme court dated 17-9-1997 is not maintainable in ..... appearing for the appellants strenuously contended that having regard to the nature of objection raised, the very provisions under rule 11 of order 7 of the code of civil procedure has no application nor the plaint could have been rejected without proper enquiry and evidence from both sides. even otherwise, the suit having been filed in terms of the orders of the hon'ble supreme ..... 202 of the indian contract act or even under section 146 of the code of civil procedure. it was also observed that though the legal representatives of the azizunnisa begum were added as defendants 7 to 9, no relief is claimed against them. hence, the suit is liable to be rejected holding that the hon'ble supreme court has granted permission with concession to ..... court, the question of rejecting the plaint does not arise unless a regular trial is held by going into the claims and it was also contended that the interpretation .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-10-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)AWC666; (2004)3UPLBEC2806
..... the election of the petitioner was liable to be declared void. the petitioner initially filed an application purporting to be under order vii, rule 11 (a) of the code of civil procedure for rejecting the plaint as it did not disclose any cause of action. the said application was dismissed by the election tribunal vide order dated 15th may, 2002. the writ petition filed by ..... jurisdiction under order vii, rule 11 can be exercised. the apex court has held that order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure does not justify rejection of any particular portion of the plaint and order vi, rule 16 of the code is relevant in this regard. it deals with striking out pleadings. it has three clauses permitting the court at any stage of ..... or not are to be looked into for determining whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint or not. this is relevant for the purpose of considering as to whether the plaint should be rejected outright under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure or not. this exercise has already been done by the election tribunal earlier when it had ..... rejected the application filed by the petitioner under order vii, rule ii of the code of civil procedure, which order has also been upheld by this court .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-26-2004
Reported in : AIR2004AP511; 2004(4)ALD780; 2004(4)ALT541
..... plaint schedule properties in three equal parts and allotment of one such share to each of them and delivery of possession ..... under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. the petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, who seek to assail the orders in ossr no. 3492 of 2003 dated 22-12-2003 on the file of the court of district judge, karimnagar district, rejecting the plaint filed under section 26 of the code of civil procedure read with order 7, rule 1 of code of civil procedure, seeking for partition of the ..... of one such shares to the plaintiffs; recovery of an amount of rs. 40,000-00 from the defendants towards their share of rents on house from the plaint schedule property for ..... allot the shares for which they are entitled by passing a preliminary decree. after numbering the suit, the office of the senior civil judge, kavali put up a check slip stating that the said suit is for partition of plaint schedule properties and for allotment of shares of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants and also for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-14-2004
Reported in : 116(2005)DLT585
..... of the application as it was contended that section 45 of the delhi rent control act was not barred under order 23 rule 1 (4) of the code of civil procedure. thereforee, nothing would turn round on the ratio of this judgment. in inderpal singh, etc., vs. inder kaur, etc. 44 (199) dlt 399, ..... the suit was contrary to the provision of law as there was no scope of applying order 23 cpc and rejecting the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the cpc. in support of his contention learned counsel appearing for the appellant has sited the reliance of 1987 dlt 134, 44 1991 dlt ..... within the ambit and scope of order 7 rule 11 cpc and, thereforee, the rejection of plaint is liable to be set aside and the suit is liable to be restored. it was contended that ..... on the prayers sought in the suit as relief claimed and the cause of action are on the basis of which relief cannot be granted or rejected to the plaintiffs and for the purposes of cause of action of the facts pleaded have to be looked as a bundle of facts in ..... cpc cannot be applied to the suits instituted after withdrawal or abandonment of previous suit and the same cannot be read so as to b... of suit which has already been instituted before the other suit had been abandoned or dismissed. it was contended by learned counsel for the appellant the the learned single judge could not have dismissed or rejected the plaint .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-13-2004
Reported in : 2004(6)ALD638
..... plaintiff never sought the leave of the court for payment of deficit court fee, but only sought enlargement of time for resubmitting the plaint.6. at the outset, it is to be noted that as per the code of civil procedure (amendment) act no. 46 of 1999 with effect from 1-7-2002 under section 148 of c.p.c. the time that can ..... about for years on 13-2-2003. if that be so, in the light of the mandatory provisions of order 7, rule ll(c) of cpc the plaint is liable to be rejected.8. learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that since no prejudice is caused to the defendant in permitting the suit to proceed and particularly since the order impugned cannot ..... instance and particularly for nonpayment of deficit court fee even after the period of about four years. in such circumstances, the court below ought to have rejected the plaint under order 7, rule 11 (c) of cpc which mandates that where the plaintiff on being required by the court to pay the deficit court fee within the time to be fixed fails to ..... do so the plaint shall be rejected. it is to be noted that the plaint initially presented was returned on 17-6-1999 granting seven days time for complying the objections .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-23-2004
Reported in : 2004(74)DRJ62
..... partition, declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property.5.a reading of the provisions of order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure indicates that the plaint can be rejected only if it appears from the statement in the plaint to barred by any law. in mohan lal chatrath v. m.c.d, delhi, : air2000delhi40 , a division bench of this court has ..... is purportedly filed under the provisions of order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. 4.since the said application was listed for arguments, i have heard the counsel appearing for the parties on the said application. by filing the said application the relation no.3 seeks rejection of the plaint on the ground that the probate proceeding is barred by limitation. it ..... held that even if the expression 'the statement in the plaint' is given a liberal interpretation, documents filed with the plaint may be looked into, but ..... examined. even at that stage no such plea was raised nor any suggestion was given regarding limitation on behalf of the objector. subsequently this application is filed praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation contending that in view of the decisions of this court in pamela manmohan singh v. states & ors, reported in : 83(2000)dlt469 , and glitter .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-22-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN491
..... and also on various other dates.(g) in such a suit the defendant petitioner filed an application under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure, inter alia, praying for rejection of the said plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. in the said application the defendant petitioner claimed that since a particular date was fixed ..... instant case are such where further investigation is necessary for ascertaining as to whether the said fixed date was extended or not, the plaint cannot be rejected straightaway on an application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil of civil procedure. the decision which was cited by mr. roychowdhury viz., t.l. muddukrishana and anr. v. lalitha ramchandra rao, reported in ..... on 4th july, 2000, is barred by the laws of limitation. accordingly, the defendant prayed for rejection of the said plaint under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure.(h) the plaintiffs opposite parties contested the said application for rejection of plaint by filing objection denying the allegations of the defendant petitioner. in the said objection it was claimed that ..... for ascertaining the bar of limitation, the court should not reject the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. mr. dasgupta further submits that even in a case where the pleadings are vague, still then the court cannot reject the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure straightaway without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-22-2004
Reported in : (2004)3CALLT631(HC),2005(4)CHN391
..... the application filed by the petitioner before the tribunal under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure should have been allowed by rejecting the claim.11. the provisions of order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure is quoted herein below:'rule 11. rejection of plaint - the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;(b ..... to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law'.12. the said provisions of the code of civil procedure in its clause (a) provides for rejection of the claim where it does not claim cause of action.13. on scrutiny of the claim petition filed by the ..... was registered as o.a. no. 149 of 1995.3. in the said claim case the petitioner filed an application under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. the said application was rejected. the petitioner moved this high court on an application under article 227. the high court passed an order on the said application under article 227 and observed that ..... claim under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure which has been observed that the rejection should be made only where the litigation was utterly vexatious and an abuse of process of court.18. in view of the settled position of law and in view of the scrutiny of the plaint/petition, it appears to this court that cause of action was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Decided on : Nov-18-2004
Reported in : (2005)125CompCas661
..... justice and act in its discretion as envisaged in sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 10e. every bench constituted by the clb is vested with the powers of a civil court, while trying a suit under the code of civil procedure, 1908 in respect of the matters specified in sub-section (4c) of section 10e. the clb having trappings of a ..... civil court has to do substantial justice with regard to the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement under sections 397 and 398. whether the grievances set out in the company petition ..... , any defendant cannot pray for striking off a plaint before a civil court. such a prayer could be made under order 7 rule 11 of the cpc, which envisages a definite parameters. the apex court in state of orissa v. klockner & co. air 1996 sc 2140, set aside the order passed by the trial judge rejecting the plaint under order 7, rule 11 of the ..... of the company law board regulations, 1991 is analogous to the provisions of section 151 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, section 482 of the code of criminal procedure and rule 41 of customs, excise & gold (control) appellate tribunal (procedure) rules, 1982 envisaging the inherent power of the civil court, high court and the tribunal respectively, to make such orders as may be necessary for the .....Tag this Judgment!