Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)
Sha-San Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd vs Thakur Corner Byabsayee Kalyan Samity & ... on 29 June, 2010 cites

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004

The cause of action which was pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint of the said suit has already been mentioned above. As such this Court does not feel any necessity for reiterating the said facts here once again. Cause of action is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code. Cause of action is a bundle of facts on which the plaintiff claims relief in the suit. For ascertaining as to whether cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint or not, the Court is required to consider the averments made out by the plaintiff in the plaint as a whole. While considering such pleadings, the Court can neither add anything to the pleadings nor can supplement anything to the pleadings nor can subtract anything from the pleadings. While considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court is required to confine itself within the plaint. In 6 fact, meaningful reading of the plaint is the demand of the statue, as such the Court should not take a casual approach by reading the averments made in the plaint formally as the consequence of allowing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is far reaching which ultimately results into rejection of the plaint. While considering the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others vs. Assistant Charity Commission and others reported in 2004 volume 3 SCC 137 held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated to note around Order 7 Rule 11. It was further held therein that the Court must remember that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint and not by formal reading, the court finds that it is manifestly vexious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. It was further held therein that if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 541 - A Pasayat - Full Document

12, I.C. Bose Road Tenants' Association vs Collector Of Howrah And Ors. on 7 September, 1977

Almost in an identical situation a question come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court regarding maintainability of a writ petition at the instance of an Association formed with the tenants to challenge the legality of the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the tenancy of the members of the said Association. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of 12 I. C. Bose Road Tenants' Association vs. Collector, Howrah reported in AIR 1977 Calcutta page 436 held that the persons who will be affected by the acquisition of the lands comprised in the said premises are the tenants occupying the same premises thereof, but surely not the association herein which has no legal right in the said premises and as such the question of infringement of the legal right of the said Association does not arise at all. Thus, this Hon'ble Court held that the Association of such tenants has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 10 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Hede And Company on 15 May, 2007

There is another test for considering the merit of the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Dede and Company reported in 2007 volume 5 SCC 614. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the said decision that the test is whether the averments made in the plaint, if taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed. Let me now apply the said test in the instant case. Apart from the fact which I have mentioned above that the cause of action which is pleaded in the plaint does not relate to the invasion of any legal right of the plaintiff association, this Court also wants to mention here that even the plaint was not presented by the association in 10 compliance of the provision of Section 19 of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act of 1961. Section 19 of the said Act provides that every society may sue or may be sued in the name of the President, the Secretary and office bearer, authorised by the Governing body in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 284 - B P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next