Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Basanta Misra And Ors. vs Laxmi Alias Jagyasani Misrani on 24 November, 1970

State Bank Of India vs Sanjeev Malik on 15 February, 1996

It was there held that the Civil Court could grant mesne profits,but could dismiss the suit so far as the relief of possession is concerned "on the ground that the Civil Court has no Jurisdiction to grant the relief..." The Orissa High Court in Basanta Mishra vs. Laxmi held that relief for maintenance could be granted by the Munsif Court at Sonepur while the said Court would not, because of Section 16(b), be able to grant relief of partition as the property was outside the jurisdiction. In those circumstances, Order 6, Rule 16 was to be applied and plaintiff asked to delete the relief of partition. If plaintiff fails, the Court could strike out the relief but the plaint could not be returned under Order 7, Rule 10 CPC. All these rulings would show that the entire plaint cannot be returned if the Court has jurisdiction in regard to a part.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - M J Rao - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Sabco Industries And Ors. on 22 June, 1998

In the decision reported in ILR 1966 Cuttack, 926 (Basanta Mishra and Anr. v. Laxmi alias Jagnasini Mishrani) a suit had been filed claiming maintenance as well as partition of properties. Since the properties sought to be partitioned were admittedly outside the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the trial Court had directed for return of the plaint. The High Court while dealing with the matter observed that the prayer for maintenance was coming within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and as such, the trial Court should have given an option to the plaintiff for continuance of the suit on the prayer for maintenance only, and the prayer for partition could have been deleted by following the provisions contained in Order 6, Rule 16, CPC. Keeping in view the principles in the aforesaid two decisions, in the present case, the trial Court should have given an option to the plaintiff to proceed with the suit so far as it related to prayer contained in paragraph-26 (a) of the plaint and if in spite of such option being given the plaintiff would have insisted upon deciding the question relating to foreclosure, in that case the trial Court could have directed for return of the plaint for presentation before the proper Court.
Orissa High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - P K Misra - Full Document

Bidesi Bagarty vs Jogendra Sahu And Ors. on 27 January, 2003

10. Upon hearing the parties, I am of the view that when the lower appellate Court found that further materials were necessary to do proper justice to the case effectively, it should have framed the issue and refer the same to trial Court to record the findings. There was no justification to vacate the judgment of the trial Court and remand the entire litigation for fresh determination (See A.I.R. 1971 Orissa 303 : Basanta Misra and Ors. v. Laxmi alias Jagyaseni Misrani).
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B P Das - Full Document
1