Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-02-2010
..... /2006 against the petitioner/defendant. the defendant filed written statement and i.a.4 under 0.7 r.ll cpc to reject the plaint, on the ground that, the agreement provides for resolution of disputes by having recourse to arbitration. the trial court has rejected i.a.4. however, it has referred the dispute to the arbitrator as per ci.1.33 of joint .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-29-2010
..... act. anyway the suit as framed is barred by law as contemplated under order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure and hence the plaint is liable to be rejected. the trial court was right in its view.14. mr. deopujari, the learned counsel for the respondent, relied upon ..... written statement is filed, raising such objection. now, it is well settled that the application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. the law laid down by the apex court in its judgment in hari shankar ..... it, if it does not disclose cause of action under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. apart from this, the effect of section 9a of the code of civil procedure regarding framing of preliminary issue has also not been considered ..... bank in respect of the aforesaid property, is fraudulent.3. the applicant/defendant filed an application under order ix rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for dismissal of the suit, for want of jurisdiction. according to the appellant/defendant, the plaintiff has no right to claim relief of ..... jain v. sonia gandhi : (2001) 8 scc 233; clearly states that the court is duty bound to examine the case, regardless of written statement or denial in one form or the other and to reject .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata Appellate
Decided on : Dec-10-2010
..... court at alipore, in title suit no. 1673 of 2009 by which the application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint filed by the defendant no.2 was rejected by the learned trial judge. the said defendant is aggrieved. hence he has come before this court with this application. 2 ..... the case where the defendant no.2 prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law. as such the court is ..... one of the reliefs which was claimed by the plaintiff cannot be granted for any reason whatsoever, the plaint as a whole, cannot be rejected under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure particularly when the sufficient cause of action has been made out in the said suit in support of ..... of the code of civil procedure, the court is required to consider the pleadings made out by the plaintiff in the plaint alone and if on such consideration, the court finds that any of the conditions as mentioned in order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure is attracted, the plaint can be rejected. here is ..... cause of action has been made out by the plaintiff against all the defendants for the reliefs claimed in the said suit, this court cannot reject the plaint by holding that the suit is vexatious, so far as the non-contracting defendants are concerned. 16. under such circumstance, this court holds .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-30-2010
..... lanham act. the district court for the northern district of new york dismissed the action invoking rule 12(b)(6) of the federal rules of civil procedure (equivalent to the provision for rejection of plaint under order vii, rule 11, cpc 1908) on the ground that google did not use rescuecom's trademark in commerce within the meaning of the lanham act. on appeal, the ..... stay of the suit.212. however, i do not think that there is any necessity to stay the suit. the second defendant has entered appearance through counsel and has also filed counter affidavits to the applications for injunction. the second defendant has also come up with substantial applications for stay of suit and rejection of plaint. therefore ..... that in the plaint, the plaintiff has given a false and fictitious address for the second defendant, despite the fact that there are several litigations between the parties and the plaintiff was well aware of the correct address of the second defendant. the second defendant relies upon the provisions of order vi, rule 14a (5)(a) of the code of civil procedure, for seeking ..... & 6383 of 2009210. while a.no.6380 of 2009 is by the fourth defendant under order vii, rule 11, cpc to reject the plaint, a.nos.6382 and 6383 of 2009 are by the second defendant praying for (i) rejection of plaint under order vii, rule 11, cpc; and (ii) stay of further proceedings in the suit.211. the stay of suit is sought on the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-05-2010
..... error of jurisdiction or an error of law committed by the trial court, though generally a remedy of review or appeal is permissible when a plaint is rejected as per order 7, rule 11 of civil procedure code. 28. further, to examine the regularity of proceedings or correctness, legality or proprietary of any decision or order, the high court can exercise ..... p.k.palanisamy v. n.arumugham and another, 2009 (4) ctc 187, wherein it is held that "once application under section 149 of civil procedure code is allowed, order 7, rule 11(c) of code will have no application and further more, payment of court fees is a matter between state and suitor." he seeks in aid of the decision ..... is a fit case for using the said power, this court is exercising the same in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. 32. in the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. consequently, the order in i.a.no.74 of 2008 in o.s.no.91 of 2007 dated 30.04.2009 passed by the ..... our view, it must be treated as pending from the date of presentation not only for the purpose of sufficiency as to court-fee under section 149 of the code." (h) in k.duraiswamy v. s.n.mylswamy, this court in c.r.p. npd no.2107 of 2008 on 30.09.2009 has held as follows ..... section 4 of the court-fees act is not the last word on the subject and the court must consider the provisions of both the act and the code to harmonise the two sets of provisions which can only be done by reading section 149 as a proviso to section 4 of the court-fees act by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-2010
..... and cautiously though it does have the power to reject the plaint in a proper case.in popat and kotecha property v. state bank of india staff assn. 2005 7 scc 510, supreme court noted that the real object of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure is to keep irresponsible law suits out of the ..... that the court at this stage is not deciding the matter finally but is only taking a view on an application under order 7 rule 11 of cpc for rejection of plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, this judgment does not help the defendant. in the case of randhir singh chandok ..... yes3. whether the judgment should be reported yes in digest?v.k. jain, jia no. 9657/2008 (under order 7 rule 11 of cpc)1. this is an application for rejection of plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.2. this is a suit for specific performance of an cs(os)no ..... courts and discard bogus and irresponsible litigation. it was further held that dispute questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed under order 7 rule 11 of cpc.6. the first question, which comes ..... ). it does not contain any such proposition of law which makes out the case for rejection of the plaint.19. for the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, i find no merit in the application under order 7 rule 11 of the cpc and the same is hereby dismissed. cs(os) no. 1440/2008 and ia no. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata Appellate
Decided on : Dec-03-2010
..... 2007 in the context of the above discussion. 7. since it is settled law that while considering the defendants application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, the court cannot consider any other statement save and except the pleadings made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint for ascertaining attraction of the provisions of order 7 rule 11 of the ..... possession and damages and 2 also for permanent injunction. by an order dated 20th september, 2006, the defendants application for rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the civil procedure code was rejected on contest. the said order is the subject matter of challenge in civil revisional application being c.o. no. 3755 of 2007. 2. by subsequent order dated 23-02-2010, the ..... incidental relief for recovery of possession also cannot be granted in the present suit. mr. banerjee thus prayed for the rejection of the plaint on the ground of bar of law in maintaining the suit under order 7 rule 11 of the civil procedure code. 21. mr. roy choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing for the opposite parties, refuted such submission of mr. banerjee by ..... of law in maintaining the suit, as claimed by the petitioner in this proceeding. thus this court holds that this revisional application has no merit. the revisional application thus stands rejected. 27. both the aforesaid revisional applications are thus disposed of. 28. urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-20-2010
..... . 9.in thanamki prasad case (3 supra) a learned judge of this court held that at scrutiny stage of the case, no court can appreciate merits of case and reject plaint on the ground that case of plaintiff is not well founded or devoid of any merits unless defect goes to root of matter. 10.in the facts and circumstances above, ..... is contrary to the legal provision since the language of order vii rule 10 of the code is not attracted. hence it should be treated as an order passed under order vii rule 11 cpc i.e. rejection of plaint, which reads as under:rejection of plaint: the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: a) where it does not disclose a cause of action, b) where ..... as per the said will. he finally contended that though the court below had simply returned the plaint, but, it amounts to rejection of plaint since the plaint is returned not for presentation of the same before proper court as envisaged under order vii rule 10 cpc and hence the order impugned in this revision amounts to an order passed under order vii rule 11 ..... cpc and becomes a reversible order. the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 1) suryalaxmi cotton mills limited .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-10-2010
..... of the parties have not yet been determined; 4. learned additional district judge had rejected the plaint under section 46(2) of the civil procedure code; 5. under section 46(2) of the civil procedure code, the plaintiff is not precluded from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action; and 6. in view of the ..... mind that clear provision had been made in section 754(5) in defining a judgment and an order made by any civil court to be applicable only to the chapter in the civil procedure code dealing with appeals and revisions. accordingly in terms of section 754(5) there could be only a judgment, order having ..... for the said purpose. therefore to ascertain the nature of the decision made by a civil court as to whether it is final or not, in keeping with the provisions of section 754(5) of the civil procedure code, it would be necessary to follow the test defined by lord esher mr in standared discount ..... sri l.r. 262) and siriwardena v air ceylon ltd. (supra)), and had come to the conclusion that the determination whether an order in a civil proceeding is a judgment or an order having the effect of a final judgment has not been an easy task for courts. an analysis of the english ..... sections of section 754 are as follows: 754(1) any person who shall be dissatisfied with any judgment, pronounced by any original court in any civil action, proceeding or matter to which he is a party may prefer an appeal to the court of appeal against such judgment for any error in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-02-2010
..... the hindu marriage act (hereinafter referred to as the act) and that the subsequent events as detailed in para-12 were not covered under section 11 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as cpc).3. mr.p.norula, counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that his second petition seeking divorce is maintainable as in para-12 he has narrated subsequent ..... petition and therefore, this petition is maintainable. he has referred to 'malti v. ramesh kumar', i (2006) dmc 878.4. order 7 rule 11 cpc empowers the court to reject a plaint on any of the grounds narrated therein. some of the grounds are that, where plaint does not disclose a cause of action or, where the suit appears from the statement in the ..... plaint to be barred by any law. though a plea of res judicata under section 11 cpc has been raised by the petitioner, however, principles of res ..... alleged by him in his first petition filed on 27th may, 1998. in view of dismissal of the first petition, petitioner filed an application under order 7 rule 11 cpc seeking rejection/dismissal of the petition as barred by res judicata.9. as discussed above, principles of res judicata do not strictly apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. since .....Tag this Judgment!