Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 773 results (0.238 seconds)

Apr 26 2005 (HC)

Snowhite Apparels Ltd. Vs. K.S.A. Technopak (i) Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-26-2005

Reported in : IV(2005)BC134; 121(2005)DLT351; 2005(83)DRJ580

..... air 1940 ran 207, official trustee v. mrs. rae burn and ors. : air1942pat335 ; .the relevant provision of order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure provides:-'r.11. rejection of plaint.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.'7. a perusal of the clause (d) shows that the ..... with the issue whether an election petition could also be rejected under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure. in s.n. rekhi's case (supra), a division bench of this court held that a court could reject a plaint under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure, if the facts as stated in the plaint are taken to be proved and if such facts disentitled ..... plaint would be liable to be rejected if the statement made in the plaint shows that it was barred by any law. thereforee, the relevant facts ..... 1. appellant is the defendant in a suit for recovery of rs. 6 lacs or so filed by first respondent. it had filed an application for rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11 cpc claiming that this suit was barred by time which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 13.05.2004. appellant assails the order and asserts that suit was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2005 (HC)

Krishna and anr. Vs. Kedarnath and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-21-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Kant21; III(2006)BC9; [2006]133CompCas700(Kar); ILR2005KAR5338; 2005(6)KarLJ337; [2006]66SCL260(Kar)

..... 1-2005 passed by the trial court on la. ii filed by the uco bank under order vii rule ii cpc rejecting the plaints holding that the suits are barred under clause (d). the rejection of plaints amounts to decrees and therefore appeals are filed.2. the facts and question of law involved in both the ..... has upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the act, at paragraph 51 in the above referred case, it is held that jurisdiction of the civil court also can be invoked for limited purposes. while the bank can enforce its security interest for realization of its amount, right of the plaintiffs to ..... 13 and 19 of the act are not applicable to the case. the counsel submits that right of the parties have to be determined by the civil court on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence that will be brought on record. therefore, he seeks to set aside the orders/judgments under ..... out proceedings to bring the same for sale without the intervention of the court and till the rights of the parties are determined by the civil court, and the civil court alone could decide and determine the rights of the parties in respect of their respective claims in the suit for partition, the 3rd ..... be adjudicated by any of the tribunal or authority, created under the act or under any other act, the right of the parties to approach the civil court for appropriate relief cannot be deprived and taken away.31. admittedly, in our case, the petitioners have filed the suit for partition including the item .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2005 (HC)

Sh. Sudershan Kumar Seth Vs. Sh. Pawan Kumar Seth and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-05-2005

Reported in : 124(2005)DLT305

..... singh and : 2005(80)drj120 , rajiv oberoi and ors v. santosh kumar oberoi and ors. to contend that he could file the application under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint without filing written statment, the applicant has relied on : [2002]supp5scr491 , saleem bhai and ors. v. state of maharashtra and ors.7. i have heard the learned counsels ..... his brother against him and his sisters, without filing the written statement, filed the application under 7 rule 11 read with section 151 of code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint.2. the defendant/applicant has sought rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has paid a fixed court fees of rs. 20.00 only though the case of ..... possession of the property is liable to pay ad valorum court fees on his share.13. the other plea of the plaintiff that the application for rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure should not be considered as the defendant no. 1 has not filed the written statement and the application has been filed with a view to ..... plaintiff also sought dismissal of the application on the ground that without filing the written statement the defendant could not maintain the application for rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.4. the plaintiff has relied on : (2004)1scc271 , md. mohammd ali (dead) by lrs v. jagdish kalita and ors.; : [1980]2scr307 , neelavathi and ors. v. n .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2005 (HC)

Sanat Kumar Mullick Vs. Octavious Tea and Industries Ltd. and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-06-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)CHN280

..... have been made proforma defendants. 4. after entering appearance in the suit, the defendant no. 1 filed an application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure thereby praying for rejection of the plaint on the allegation that although the suit is based on the allegation that the lease of the property had been determined for breach of express condition, yet ..... appeal. 7. mr. banerjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended before us that while rejecting the plaint under the provision of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, the learned trial judge adopted a procedure not permissible in law. mr. banerjee contends that the learned trial judge while arriving at his finding that there was no ..... against the order no. 86 dated 4th september, 2004 passed by the learned judge, 7th bench, city civil court at calcutta in title suit no. 1580 of 1996 thereby allowing an application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure by rejecting the plaint. 2. the plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit thereby praying for recovery of khas possession of the suit ..... premises as described in schedule of the plaint on the basis of a registered deed of lease dated 5th march, 1985 executed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 2005 (HC)

Chotelal Sahu and ors. Vs. Vishram Tumkeri and ors.

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Jun-28-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)MPHT41(CG)

..... decide the dispute and grant the necessary relief, therefore, according to section 257 of the chhattisgarh land revenue code, 1959 the civil suit was barred.14. order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure empowers the court to reject the plaint, where from the statement in the plaint, the suit appears to be barred by any law. therefore, the suit, filed by the plaintiffs without service ..... by the plaintiffs-respondent nos. 1 to 3 under section 91(1) of the code of civil procedure and rejected the application filed by the defendants- applicants under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.3. learned counsel for both the parties are hear at length.4. a copy of the plaint has been filed. from perusal of the same, it is apparent that, the ..... of notice under section 80 of the code of civil procedure or permission as required under section 80(2) of the cpc, and barred under section 257 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2005 (HC)

Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad Vs. Smt. Pushpa Berry and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-02-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)MPHT49; 2005(3)MPLJ227

..... . 2 to 191 (non-applicant nos. 2 to 191) from the cause title of the plaint.5. the defendant/applicant filed an application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for the rejection of plaint on the ground that since all the plaintiffs, except for the plaintiff/non-applicant no. 1 ..... 1 in the suit was not a joint or indivisible right with the other plaintiffs whose names have been deleted. order 22 of the code of civil procedure dealing with abatement has to be strictly construed and the entire suit can not be taken to have abated simply because some of the plaintiffs ..... by the defendant/applicant is directed against the order dated 11-12-2003 passed in civil suit no. 2-a/2003 by the viiith civil judge, class ii, jabalpur, whereby its application under section 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure has been dismissed.2. the defendant/applicant is a society registered under the societies ..... . v. pramod gupta and ors., (2003) 3 scc 272 pp 300, 301 :'a careful reading of the provisions contained in order 22, cpc as well as the subsequent amendments thereto would lend credit and support to the view that they were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination in ..... on record, the suit stands abated. this application was opposed by the plaintiff/non-applicant no. 1. the trial court, by the impugned order has rejected the application.6. the plaintiffs, other than plaintiff/non-applicant no. 1, were joined as plaintiffs in their individual capacity as members. by deletion of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2005 (HC)

Ranbaxy Fine Chemicals Ltd. Vs. National Enterprises

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-05-2005

Reported in : I(2006)BC572; 2005(2)CTLJ358(Del); 126(2006)DLT124; 2005(85)DRJ516

..... % per annum and thereby making a total of rs. 26,72,179.84 pc.2. the defendant has filed present application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. the case put by the defendant is that as per the averments made ..... arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court to enable this court to entertain this suit under section 20 of the code of civil procedure. for this, let me first point out the averments made in the plaint.5. in para 3 of the plaint it is stated that the defendant had approached the plaintiff company with a proposal to become stockist to sell laboratory ..... on this court if the court otherwise lacks inherent jurisdiction. even parties by their agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on a court which otherwise does not possess the jurisdiction under the code of civil procedure. this law stands settled by the apex court in series of judgments. reference can be made to the judgment of the supreme court in hakam singh v. gammon (india ..... in the plaint itself, it is not shown that any cause of action or part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and the jurisdiction .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2005 (HC)

Sri Laxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. G.V. Mohan and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-06-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALD607

..... . subsequently they filed an interlocutory application in la.no. 3665 of 2003 in o.s.no. 118 of 2003 under order 7, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure (for brevity 'the code') requesting the court to reject the plaint. the grounds set forth inter alia therein are two fold - firstly that in the absence of exemption from the government under the urban land (ceiling ..... in whole or in part did arise at calcutta. in para 8, the apex court held thus :8. the expression 'cause of action' is tersely defined in mulla's code of civil procedure :the 'cause of action' means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the ..... is that all issues in controversy are to be decided at the time of trial. under the impugned order dated 23-2-2004, the learned chief judge, city civil court, hyderabad, eventually rejected the plaint. assailing the same, the present appeal has been preferred before this court. the respondents 3 to 6 have been impleaded in the appeal by means of an order ..... committed by defendants 2 to 13 and issue appropriate direction to that effect. in that suit, an application was filed raising a preliminary plea that the plaint was liable to be rejected on the ground that civil court had no jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question in view of section 80 of the bombay public trusts act, 1950. the trial court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2005 (HC)

A. Sreedevi Vs. Vicharapu Ramakrishna Gowd

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-02-2005

Reported in : 2005(5)CTC748; I(2006)DMC475; (2006)1MLJ116

..... the family the court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. the code of civil procedure, 1908 was amended in 1976 to provide for a special procedure to be adopted in suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning the family. however, not much ..... triable issue. in fact, shri salve was unable to dispute the inevitable consequence that the plaint was liable to be rejected under order vii rule 11, cpc on these averments. all that shri salve contended was that the court did not in fact reject the plaint under order vii rule 11, cpc and summons having been issued, the trial must proceed. in our opinion, it makes ..... licensing frivolous and vexatious litigation. this cannot be done.14. it being beyond dispute that the plaint averments do not disclose a cause of action, the plaint is liable to be rejected under order vii rule 11, cpc without going into the applicability of order xxiii rule 3-a, cpc to the present suit. having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary to adopt the technical ..... the hmop.23. it is to be remembered that in this case, the petitioner herein has not filed any application under order vii rule 11 cpc before the trial court seeking the relief of rejecting the plaint but chosen to approach this court by filing this revision under article 227 of the constitution of india. article 227 of the constitution of india runs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2005 (HC)

Hadir Nilufar Khalil Vs. Jalalur Rahman

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Dec-15-2005

..... note of the fact that the plaintiff filed the said application praying for time during the course of hearing and not earlier. upon dismissal of the suit-rejecting the plaint under order 7, rule 11 cpc a decree was drawn up against which the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff/appellant.10. i have heard mr. d.c. mahanta learned senior counsel ..... stamp.8. the learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.3.2001 accepted the contention raised on behalf of the defendant respondent and rejected the plaint under provisions of order 7, rule 11 cpc without passing any order on the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff on which also argument was put forward by the parties.9. while passing the ..... h.n. sarma, j.1. the rejection of the plaint in title suit no. 13/99 vide order dated 16.3.2001 by the learned civil judge, senior division, golaghat and or dismissal of the suit has resulted into this first appeal. the plaintiff appellant filed the aforesaid title suit in the court the civil judge, sr. division, golaghat on 28.7.1999 prayer for ..... :1. declaring the right title and interest of the plaintiff over the land and the houses as shown in schedule 'c' to the plaint;2. directing the defendant by any order of mandatory injunction to pull down .....

Tag this Judgment!


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