Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.55 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 78 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I & Anr on 20 November, 2003
To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Liverpool & London S.P. and I Assn.
Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I where this Court held that the disclosure of a cause of action in
the plaint is a question of fact and the answer to that question must be found only from the
reading of the plaint itself. The court trying a suit or an election petition, as the position is
in the present case, shall while examining whether the plaint or the petition discloses a
cause of action, to assume that the averments made in the plaint or the petition are factually
correct. It is only if despite the averments being taken as factually correct, the court finds
no cause of action emerging from the averments that it may be justified in rejecting the
plaint….
The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Ponnala Lakshmaiah vs Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors on 6 July, 2012
In Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and
Others (2012) 7 SCC 788, this Court considered the scope of an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Such an application was
filed by the returned candidate praying that the election petition be
dismissed for non-disclosure of any cause of action. This Court
opined that for the purpose of determining such an application, the
averments in the election petition must be taken to be factually correct
and thereafter examine whether such averments furnish the cause of
action for granting the relief to the petitioner. Such a conclusion was
recorded on the basis of the law laid down in an earlier judgment of
this Court4. We are of the opinion the same principles of law are
applicable even while adjudicating the application under Order VI Rule
1