Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing Khaja Quthubullah vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 8 July, 1994

Ch. Kiron And Ors. vs Collector And Anr. on 29 November, 2005

13. It is nextly contended by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that gazette notification and paper publication are not simultaneous and thus notification under Section 4(1) is to be declared as invalid. Strong reliance has been placed on the decision of our High Court in Mohd. Khaja v. Govt. of A.P. (supra). In the cited decision, unamended Section 4(1) notification fell for consideration. Section 4(1) came to be amended by Act.68/84. Section 4 as amended by Act.68/84 reads as under:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. A Co. ... vs Civil Judge Senior Division Lucknow & ... on 23 August, 2012

This point has been specifically dealt with by the different High Courts in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University v. Priya Soloman, Khaja Quthubullah v. Govt. of A.P., Vedapalli Suryanarayana v. Poosarla Venkata Sanker Suryanarayana, Arjan Singh v. Union of India and State Bank of India Staff Assn. v. Popat & Kotech Property wherein it has been held that the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to these judgments the suit has to be barred by a provision of law to come within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S Siddiqi - Full Document

Prime Cottex Pvt Ltd vs Bank Of Baroda on 18 December, 2019

But this point has been specifically dealt with by the different High Courts in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University v. Priya Soloman[11], Khaja Quthubullah v. Govt. of A.P.[12], Vedapalli Suryanarayana v. Poosarla Venkata Sanker Suryanarayana[13], Arjan Singh v. Union of India[14] wherein it has been held that the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to these judgments the suit has to be barred by a provision of law to come within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Gujarat High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 1 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

C. Natrajan vs Ashim Bai & Anr on 11 October, 2007

But this point has been specifically dealt with by the different High Courts in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University v. Priya Soloman, Khaja Quthubullah v. Govt. of A.P., Vedapalli Suryanarayana v. Poosarla Venkata Sanker Suryanarayana, Arjan Singh v. Union of India wherein it has been held that the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to these judgments the suit has to be barred by a provision of law to come within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 223 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar @ Chandra Khowala & Anr vs Mamata Chakraborty & Ors on 1 March, 2012

17. It is no doubt true that if on a reading of the plaint it were clear that the claim as raised therein is barred by limitation, clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code would empower the Court to reject the plaint. However, it is settled law that if the question of limitation is connected or interwoven with the merits of the case, the matter requires to be decided along with the other issues and in such case clause (d) would have no application (see AIR 1987 Delhi 165 : Arjun Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Andhra Pradesh 43 : Khaja Quthubullah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, and AIR 1999 Rajasthan 102 : Mohanlal Sukhadia University v. Priya Solaman). In terms of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is three years from the date the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside first becomes known to him. It is not known at this stage as to whether the opposite party no.1 or his representative was allowed to peruse the alleged forged deed of gift dated March 27, 1965 in course of proceedings before the Executive Officer of the Municipality and thus became aware of the entire contents thereof or not. The date on which the opposite party no.1 actually came to learn of such alleged forged deed of gift and the extent of knowledge derived would be decisive, which could only surface after evidence is led at the trial. The controversy cannot be resolved at this stage without receiving evidence. The opposite party no.1 has averred in the plaint that she came to learn of the fraud that had been committed after receiving the certified copy on June 13, 1995. Such averment has to be treated as correct since while reading a plaint for deciding whether it deserves rejection or not on application of the terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code or not, nothing can be added or subtracted. The contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the suit is barred by limitation does not appeal to me, at least at this stage, to warrant an order for rejection of the plaint.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - D Datta - Full Document

R.Arunkumar vs K.Malaisami on 25 March, 2011

(v)Khaja Quthubullah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (08.07.1994  APHC) Civil  disposal  Order 14 Rule 1 and Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  Trial Court rejected suit on ground of limitation  High Court stated that for rejecting a case all points relating to question of facts and law to be considered  case to be taken up first on question of law or fact and later on other issues  suit to be decided considering all evidenced produced by parties  Order of Trial Court set aside  Order 7 Rule 13 empowered petitioner to fill suit on same cause of action. 
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - C S Karnan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next