Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2011
..... passed vide order dated 28.02.2001. the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed an application under order ix rule 13 read with order xxxvii rule 4 of the code of civil procedure for setting aside the eviction decree dated 28.02.2001 and for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend. the said application was allowed by ..... restraining him from dispossessing the appellants from the suit property by way of execution. in the said suit, the respondent filed an application under order vii rule 11 cpc praying for rejection of the plaint under clause (d) of rule 11 since the eviction decree passed by the trial court has attained finality by virtue of the order dated 18.12.2009 passed ..... sadashiv mule (dead) through lrs and others, (2004)8 scc 706.] 12. lastly, it is contended by counsel for appellants that the trial court ought not have rejected the plaint under order vii rule 11 cpc and at best, the trial court could have framed issues including an issue on the maintainability of the petition which could have been decided as the preliminary ..... the appellants is that despite taking notice that respondent had concealed material fact that the appellant was the brother of the respondent from the court, the trial court has rejected the plaint of the appellants on the ground that the hon'ble apex court had taken.other special reasons into consideration while deciding the application for setting aside the decree of eviction .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-17-2011
..... defendants enjoy goodwill and reputation throughout the country ." 4. i.a. 13661/2009 has been filed by the defendants under order vii rules 10 and 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit as no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court.5. i ..... view on the issue of jurisdiction without giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in this regard.11. order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, which provides for rejection of plaint, to the extent it is relevant, empower the court to reject the plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action or where the suit appears from the statement in the ..... of action did not arise in the territorial jurisdiction of this court, it would not be a case of the plaint not disclosing a cause of action and, therefore would not entail its rejection under order vii rule 11(a) of the code of civil procedure. in such a case, the court, in view of the provisions contained in order vii rule 10 of the ..... code of civil procedure, is required to return the plaint to the plaintiff to present it to the court in which the suit should have .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-06-2011
..... -plaintiffs for being presented in drt, mumbai in exercise of power under order 7 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure. it is submitted that as such the application below exhs. 20 & 21 were under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint on the ground that considering the provisions of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions ..... the suit filed by the bank before the drt, mumbai, the respondent bank, took out two chamber summons vide exhs. 20 and 21 for rejection of the plaint under order 7 rule 11(a) of the code of civil procedure mainly on the ground that suit is barred in view of the provisions of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act ..... summons was taken out by the defendants under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of the plaint and the said chamber summons was allowed the plaint was returned to the plaintiffs for being presented to the drt, mumbai under order 7 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure. it is submitted that the said order was challenged by the company before the ..... -appellants herein for being presented before drt, mumbai under order 7 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure instead of rejecting the said plaint. being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 10.1.2008 passed by the learned city civil court, ahmedabad below exhs. 20 & 21 passed in civil suit no. 1431 of 2003, the appellants original plaintiffs no. 1 and 3 have preferred .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-12-2011
..... both sides.7. to appreciate the contentions of both the parties, we will have to see the provisions of order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure which runs as follows:-"11. rejection of plaintthe plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on ..... injustice to the plaintiff."8. therefore, unless the revision petitioners are able to bring their case within the provisions of order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, they cannot ask for the relief of rejection of plaint. as stated supra, the case of the revision petitioners cannot be brought under order vii rule 11 (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f). it cannot ..... .no.131 of 2008 under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint stating that the suit was not filed by proper persons as per section 92 of the code of civil procedure and no leave was obtained and the trust cannot maintain a suit under section 92 of the code of civil procedure. that application was dismissed by order dated 5.8.2008. thereafter ..... claimed is undervalued or not properly valued. therefore, if at all the plaint can be rejected, it can be rejected only as per order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. as per order 7 rule 11(d), a plaint can be rejected where a suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.9. it is contended by the learned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-09-2011
..... the petitioner are relating to the deficit court-fee not paid on the plaint and therefore, it can be a ground for rejecting the plaint under order 7, rule 11 of code of civil procedure, in the absence of an application filed under section 149 of code of civil procedure. 21. on the other hand, the rejection of the memorandum of appeal cannot be made on the same grounds available ..... under order 7, rule 11 of code of civil procedure. in fact, there is a provision enabling ..... a proviso to section 4 of the tamil nadu court-fees and suits valuation act, 1955. the word 'document' employed in section 149 of code of civil procedure would include plaint also. whenever a plaint is received, the same shall be verified and if found to be not in order, the same shall be returned at least on the third day (excluding the date of ..... lw 866 : 1970(1) mlj 234, i am of the considered view that the first appellate court has rightly rejected the application filed by the revision petitioner and therefore, it is not proper for this court to interfere under section 115 of code of civil procedure. in view of the same, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. no costs. 11. per contra .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-19-2011
..... , as such, requests for dismissal of the suit. 5 in the pending suit, defendant presented an application under order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure requesting for rejection of the plaint. it is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff, in the suit, pleaded oral agreement of rent in respect of the suit premises. in view of ..... petitioner herein, (referred to as 'the defendant'), tendered an application under order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure, requesting the court to reject the plaint. the application tendered by the petitioner came to be rejected. hence, this civil revision application.3 plaintiff instituted suit claiming recovery of an amount of rs.39,000/ towards arrears of rent against ..... of the act would necessarily lead to a consequence of invalidating civil remedies necessitating rejection of plaint, cannot be accepted. the trial court was justified in rejecting the application tendered by the petitioner original defendant seeking rejection of the plaint, as contemplated under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure.12 in the result, civil revision application stands dismissed. rule discharged. no costs. ..... is not in consonance with section 55. the objection raised by the defendant that contravention of sub section (1) of section 55 shall lead to consequence of rejection of plaint, as contemplated by order vii rule 11(d), is not acceptable. 8 learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to place reliance on the judgment in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-15-2011
..... has held that the revision is also not maintainable since the order rejecting the plaint is a decree under the code of civil procedure. even if the plaint is rejected on some other grounds not covered by order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, the remedy is only an appeal under section 96 of code of civil procedure. (e) in (2006) 4 supreme court cases 412 (s.rajeswari v. ..... s.n.kulasekaran and others) the honourable apex court has held that if a petition is filed under section 151 of the code of civil procedure ..... article 227 of the constitution of india and the only remedy available to the revision petitioners/plaintiffs is to file regular appeal under section 96 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 and therefore, the present civil revision petition is not at all maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has drawn the ..... judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the high court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. where remedy for filing a revision before the high court under section 115 cpc has been expressly barred by a state enactment, only in such case a petition under article 227 of the constitution would lie .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-23-2011
..... by the appellant from the concerned authority to initiate proceedings under section 19 of the slums act. the learned trial court while allowing the application under order vii rule 11 cpc rejected the plaint of the appellant being barred by law. this has led to the filing of the present appeal. 5. learned senior counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment is ..... is not supplied within the period given by the court, and where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. rejection of the plaint in exercise of the powers under order 7 rule 11 of the code would be on consideration of the principles laid down by this court. in t. arivandandam v. t.v. satyapal5 this ..... file written statement of respondents no. 1-3 was closed by the learned additional district judge vide order dated 25.07.2005 against which the respondents no. 1-3 preferred civil misc (main) petition which was dismissed by this court. a special leave petition was also filed by respondents no. 1 -3 which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.08 ..... & parties, vessel m.v. fortune express reported in (2006) 3 scc 100 wherein the apex court observed as under: "11. under order 7 rule 11 of the code, the court has jurisdiction to reject the plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action, where the relief claimed is undervalued and the valuation is not corrected within the time as fixed by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-29-2011
..... appeal assails the order dated 13.8.2009 whereby the learned single judge had allowed the application under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (cpc for short) filed by the defendant/respondent and consequently had rejected the plaint. it is apparent to us that the learned single judge was unshakably influenced by a document purporting to be a settlement between the ..... mayar (h.k.) ltd. v. owners & parties, vessel m.v. fortune express, (2006) 3 scc 100 it has yet again been clarified that the court cannot reject a plaint under order vii rule 11 of the cpc on the basis of the allegations made in the written statement. in other words, the defence to the suit is not relevant for the purposes of ..... - vs- radha bai, air 1968 sc 534. 2. there can be no gainsaying that an application under order vii rule 11 of the cpc for rejection of the plaint has to be decided entirely on a perusal of the plaint and documents filed along with it. if authorities are required for this proposition, we need not travel beyond the latest exposition of the law ..... by the high court or by the courts subordinate to it in a meaningful manner as per the procedure prescribed in the code and not on ones own whims. 5. after this analysis of the law relating to the circumstances in which the plaint can be rejected, a reading thereof manifests that the appellant/plaintiffs grievance was that the defendant had initially agreed to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-20-2011
1. the revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the code of civil procedure ('cpc' in short) against the order dated 15-12-2010 passed by the learned senior civil judge whereby the application of the petitioner-defendant under order vii rule 11 cpc for rejecting the plaint in the suit for possession, injunction and damages filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff herein in respect ..... dismissed this application filed by the defendants vide impugned order which is re-produced below: "the defendant had moved an application under order 7 rule 11 of the civil procedure code, 1908 for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff falls within the jurisdiction of delhi development authority (dda) and the plaintiff has encroached upon the disputed property. some other grounds ..... the other hand, mr. sanjiv sindhwani, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 - plaintiff contended that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner - respondent no. 2 under order vii rule 11 cpc. it was further submitted that for rejection of a plaint under order vii rule 11 cpc all that the court is to look at is the averments in the ..... plaint only and if on a plain reading of the plaint it appears to the court that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or that .....Tag this Judgment!