Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 726 results (0.224 seconds)

Apr 27 2006 (HC)

Hari Gokal Jewellers Vs. Satish Kapur

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-27-2006

Reported in : 2006(88)DRJ837

..... held as under::-132. 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. 133. the idea underlying order 7 rule 11(a) is that when no cause of action is disclosed, the courts will not ..... under this provision, the court has to look into the plaint. this concept has been extended by judicial pronouncement of various courts ..... the opponent as correct. despite tentative admission of such correctness, the plaint does not disclose a complete or even partial cause of action or the relief claimed is barred by law and thus, the plaint is liable to be rejected within the provisions of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. plain language of this rule shows that for determination of an application ..... so as to take within its ambit even the documents filed by the plaintiff along with plaint .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2006 (HC)

Saranya Zaveri and anr. Vs. Kamadon Academy P. Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-01-2006

Reported in : [2006]133CompCas546(Ker); 2008(38)PTC554(Ker)

..... survives for consideration is as to whether the ernakulam court has territorial jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions in the code of civil procedure. admittedly, sections 16 to 19 of the civil procedure code have no application to the present suit. under section 20 of the civil procedure code the suit is to be instituted in that court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendants or each ..... nullity. (vide paras. 25 to 27 of dhodha house v. s.r. maingi [2006] 32 ptc 1).15. this is not a case where the plaint is liable to be rejected under order vii, rule 11 (a), civil procedure code for the reason that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. this is really a case where the cause of action alleged in the ..... liverpool and london s.p. and i association ltd. v. m.v. sea success : (2004)9scc512 . an order refusing to reject the plaint under order vii, rule 11, civil procedure code amounts to a preliminary judgment the remedy against which is an appeal and not a writ petition under article 227 of the constitution of india. (vide paragraphs 128 and 139 ..... issues incorporating the above objections. the petitioners also filed exhibit p8 petition (i.a. no. 2577 of 2005) under order vii, rule 11 read with sections 21 and 151, civil procedure code for rejection of the plaint on the aforementioned objections. accordingly, the court below on july 25, 2005, framed two preliminary issues as follows:1. whether the second additional district court, ernakulam, has jurisdiction .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2006 (HC)

Sri M.M. Thapar and anr. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-13-2006

..... , the defendants filed their written statement and raised a preliminary objection by way of an application under order vii, rule 11 c.p.c. praying that the plaint be rejected in terms of order vii, rule 11(a) and (d) of the code of civil procedure. it was the defendants' specific case that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of patna ..... civil court. secondly, the cause of action if any, related to resignation tendered and accepted at phagwara in 1995 and non payment of salary for a period of one ..... undisputed residing outside bihar. 9. in view of the aforesaid i am of clear opinion that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not rejecting the plaint in terms of order vii, rule 11 cpc. 10. the order dated 14.3.05 passed by sub judge ivth patna, in t.s. no. 495 of 2002 is set aside and the trial ..... . lastly it was contended that the suit was malacious and vexatious and the plaintiff has no enforceable legal right on the face of the plaint itself, this application of the defendants has been rejected by the trial court by the impugned order dated 14.3.2005. the learned court while considering the aforesaid, he as in substance merely relied on certain communications .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 2006 (HC)

J. Lili Jabakani and ors. Vs. T.A. Chandrasekhar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-09-2006

Reported in : 2006(5)CTC848

..... court. that was not a fact in the present case. this is an application filed under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejecting the plaint, which is a drastic relief sought against the plaintiff, who knocked the doors of the court for justice. however, in the ..... 2 to 7. they filed an application in i.a. no. 18151 of 2004 under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint, since the same does not disclose a valid cause of action. the trial court, upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel ..... of the trial court rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint on the above said grounds.7. rule 11 of the order vii of the code of civil procedure provided that a plaint could be rejected (1) if the plaint did not disclose a ..... supreme court has held that for the purpose of deciding the application filed under rule 11 of order vii of the code of civil procedure, the averments in the plaint are germane and the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. the ..... cause of action; (2) where the relief claimed was undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the court, failed to do so; (3) where the relief claimed was properly valued, but the plaint .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2006 (HC)

Chaturmal Salecha Vs. Jai Kumar

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Feb-28-2006

Reported in : 2006(3)MPHT18(CG)

..... against the total amount of consideration of rs. 3,70,000/-.2. applicant/defendant filed an application on 18-9-2001 under order vii, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint on the ground that ashok kumar and kamlesh kumar have executed the alleged agreement to sale, but the respondent/plaintiff did not join both of them as party in ..... of section 22 of the specific relief act, 1963, without claiming specific performance of contract suit for recovery of earnest money appears to be barred.5. in the instant suit, plaint does not disclose the cause of action against the defendant chaturmal in absence of ashok kumar and kamlesh kumar. set apart, from the ..... plaint averment, the instant suit appears to be barred as envisaged under section 22 of the specific relief act, 1963. dismissal of the application by the lower court is illegal, therefore, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2006 (HC)

S.C. Bose and Co. and ors. Vs. G. Srikanth

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-24-2006

Reported in : AIR2006AP337; 2006(4)ALD354

..... the learned counsel for revision petitioners. non-production of documents on which the plaintiff relies on, when the plaint is initially presented, can be due to several reasons. no provision either in cpc or in the civil rules of practice, which empower the court rejecting the plaint without affording an opportunity to cure the defect, is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for ..... earnings on account of denial of employment, loss of career development and damages for mental agony. in that suit revision petitioners filed a petition under rule 11 of order vii cpc to reject the plaint on various grounds. the learned judge by the order under revision dismissed the same on the ground that the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the ..... . on further appeal, the apex court set aside the direction directing the defendants to file the written statement and observed that only after deciding the petition to reject the plaint filed under order 7 rule 11 cpc, can the defendants be called upon to file their written statement. in para 9 of the said judgment, it is clearly held that for deciding an ..... jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain a suit for damages is brought to my notice, i find no force in the contention that the suit is barred under section 9 cpc.18. the next contention relates to the courts at hyderabad not having jurisdiction. at the outset, i must state that this is not a ground for rejection of the plaint under rule .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2006 (HC)

Kapildeo Prasad and anr. Vs. Ramanand Prasad and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Aug-04-2006

..... 22.9.2005 passed by the learned subordinate judge i, bettiah in partition suit no. 73 of 2004 by which he has rejected the defendants-petitioners' application for rejection of plaint in terms of order vii rule 11 of civil procedure code (in short 'cpc').3. in substance the defendants-petitioners' claim is that the plaintiffs-opposite parties had earlier filed a partition suit as against the ..... ) it all as indicated by the apex court, the court has power under code to meet such ends.10. in view of the aforesaid facts, i find that on the plain reading of the averments made in the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaint was liable to be rejected. it is another matter that when the stage, comes where the defence of ..... procedures ending to its resolution by a judicial pronounce. once proceedings are initiated thereunder. shri sidheshwari prasad singh, learned senior counsel for the ..... prescribed by that procedure and all other manner and/or procedure are impliedly prohibited. this principle had been laid down way back by the privy council in the celebrated decision of nazir ahmad's case and followed repeatedly by courts in india. here, in the present case, cpc is a complete code in itself. it provides for initiation of resolution of civil disputes and all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 2006 (HC)

Sheikh Akbar Vs. Chairman, Coal India Ltd. and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Nov-23-2006

Reported in : [2007(1)JCR553(Jhr)]

..... passed by the learned single judge referring the matter to division bench reads as under:mr. v. shivnath, appearing for the respondents submitted that the order rejecting plaint under order vii, rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure (on the finding that the claim was time barred), amounts to a decree in view of air 1982 pat 75, against which appeal under section ..... primafacie, we are of the view that an order rejecting plaint under order vii, rule 1(d), cpc is not appealable under order xliii of the code of civil procedure, we have no doubt in our mind in holding that the order rejecting plaint under order viii, rule 11, cpc is a decree. section 2(2) of the code of civil procedure defines a decree which reads as under:'decree' means the ..... appeal under order xliii, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure which is not maintainable. this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. appeal dismissed ..... from reading of the aforesaid provisions. it is clear that plaint shall be rejected where the court finds that suit appears to be barred by any law. such an order passed by the court rejecting the plaint as barred by law of limitation shall be a decree which appealable under section 96 of the code of civil procedure.8. in the instant case, the appellant has filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 2006 (HC)

V.N. Subramaniyam Vs. A. Nawab John and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-22-2006

Reported in : 2007(3)CTC144; (2007)1MLJ669

..... suit has not been properly valued, the court is bound to grant time for payemnt of the deficiency under orer 7 rule 11 (c.) cpc. a plaint cannot be rejected under order 7 rule 11 (c.) for being insufficiently stamped, unless the plaintiff is first called upon to supply the deficiency within a specified ..... 2006 are allowed. consequently, crp.no:797 of 2006 is also allowed which is a revision filed against the dismissal of the application filed for rejection of the plaint. 17. in the result, all the three crps are allowed. the numbering of the suit no. 100 of 2004 by the district court, ..... exercise judicial discretion in a manner known to law. crp. no. 797/2006 has been filed under section 115 cpc as the refusal to reject the plaint would come under proviso (a) and (b) of section 115 cpc and hence these revisions are maintainable. 14. as regards invocation of section 151 pc instead of 149 ..... only when the plaintiff refused to pay the balance court fee even after the defect has been pointed out, and the court cannot straight away reject the plaint. according to the learned counsel, when a party prays condonation of delay in representation duly complying with the return endorsement, and has not asked ..... .5.2002. 10. as regards pecuniary jurisdiction, the court below erroneously allowed the two interlocutory applications on 22.1.2004 since the city civil courts and chennai city civil court amendment act, 2003 and tamil nadu act 1 of 2004 came into force even as on 8.1.2004. thus on and from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 2006 (HC)

State of A.P., Rep. by Executive Engineer, R and B Vs. Syndicate Const ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-23-2006

Reported in : 2006(4)ALD177; 2006(3)ALT231

..... vijayawada towards eluru on madras-calcutta road. 13 years after filing of the suit, the defendant filed a petition la. no. 3224/1993 under order 7 rule 11(d) cpc to reject the plaint on the ground that the executive engineer cannot represent the state of andhra pradesh and there was neither special order or general order appointing him to file the suit ..... that the officer who signed was not authorized to sign. it is still curious that by following the said order the trial court rejected the very plaint invoking order 7 rule 11 (d) cpc. it is not the case where this rejection was made, as there was no disclosure of cause of action, under valuation of relief claimed, insufficiency of court fee or claim ..... learned trial judge held that the suit was barred under law. 5. in view of the above, the point that arises for consideration is whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 (d) cpc on the ground that the person who filed the suit had no authority and contravened order 27 rule 1 ..... learned trial judge invoked order 7 rule 11(d) cpc and held that it was barred under law. reliance was placed to a decision reported in 1955 (1) an.w.r. page 109, wherein the suit was dismissed for non-payment of court fee and the court opined that the rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11 was proper. therefore, the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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