Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)
Infant Advertising Pvt Ltd vs K B Yellappa Reddy on 20 February, 2018 cites

Shantesh Gureddi vs Smt. Thayamma on 17 September, 1998

The Division Bench of this Court in SHANTESH GUREDDI vs. SMT.TAYAMMA reported in ILR 1999 KAR 898 has held that a defendant can file a counter claim any time before the commencement of recording of evidence which would also encompasses within its sweep Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It would be of benefit to note at this juncture sub-rule (4) and (5) of Rule 10 of Order 1 CPC which discloses that where a defendant is added in a suit or proceedings, the plaint is required to be amended and amended copies of the plaint is to be served on such defendant who is added or impleaded. The proceedings as against such person who is added or impleaded as a defendant is deemed to have begun only on service of the summons. In the instant case, legal representatives of first defendant came to be brought on record on 09.08.2016 and they were placed exparte on said date. Subsequently, on 01.10.2016 they filed an 35 application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to set aside the order dated 09.08.2016 placing them exparte and it was allowed on the same day i.e., on 01.10.2016 and accordingly, plaint came to be amended. In other words, legal representatives of first defendant were impleaded or brought on record in the suit on 01.10.2016, on which date itself, they filed their written statement and made a counter claim for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property from plaintiffs by invoking Order 8 Rule 6A CPC by paying requisite Court fee as prescribed under Section 41 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Abdul Razak (D) Thr.Lrs. & Ors vs Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Ors on 7 January, 2010

35. Under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC Court is empowered to strike out any pleading at any stage of the proceedings in three eventualities namely, (i) where the pleadings are considered by the Court unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or (ii) where the 38 Court is satisfied that such pleadings may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit; or (iii) where the Court considers it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ABDUL RAZAK (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS AND OTHERS vs MANGESH RAJARAM WAGLE AND OTHERS reported in (2010)2 SCC 432 has held that power to strike out a pleading is an extraordinary nature and must be exercised by the court sparingly or with extreme care and circumspection. It has been further held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 406 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next