Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 16 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Sejal Glass Ltd. vs Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 21 August, 2017
27. Though Mr. S.P. Kulkarni, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would be correct
in contending that learned trial Judge could not have
recorded a finding with regard to the Will propounded
by the plaintiffs for rejection of the plaint, we do not
propose to modify or vary the order of the trial Court
whereunder the plaint has been rejected for the obvious
reason that the right to sue not being available to the
plaintiffs, question of continuing the suit would not
arise and though defendants 3 and 4 were concerned
only with the schedule 'B' property, the plaint could not
have been rejected in part or partially as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in SEJAL GLASS LTD. V. NAVILAN
MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. reported AIR 2017 SC 4477
and in the matter of MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL
Section 15 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd vs Union Bank Of India on 11 March, 2005
17. There cannot be a dispute to the proposition that
plaint can be rejected at any stage of the suit if
ingredients of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are made out. In
fact, no formal application is necessary. It can be done
even before registering the plaint also. Power under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised both at the
threshold of the proceedings and in the absence of any
statutory restriction at any stage of subsequent
proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
VITHALBHAI (P) LTD. V. UNION BANK OF INDIA.
reported in 2005 (4) SCC 315.
Ramesh B. Desai And Others vs Bipin Vadilal Mehta And Others on 11 July, 2006
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE AND OTHERS Vs. ASSISTANT
CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS reported in
(2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 137 whereunder it
came to be held that under Order VIII Rule 11 of CPC,
the trial Court can exercise power at any stage of suit. A
duty is cast on the Court to perform its obligation in
rejecting the plaint if hit by any of the infirmities
indicated in clauses (a) to (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC even without intervention of defendant. It is has
been further held:
Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002
In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra
it was held with reference to Order VII Rule
11 of the Code that the relevant facts which
need to be looked into for deciding an
application thereunder are the averments in
the plaint. The trial Court can exercise the
power at any stage of the suit - before
registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time before
the conclusion of the trial.
Samant N. Balakrishna Etc vs George Fernandez And Ors. Etc on 12 February, 1969
The dictum of Scott, L.J. in Bruce case has
been quoted with approval by this Court in
Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez
and the distinction between "material facts"
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
illusory cause of action is sought to be made out.
Where such illusory cause of action is tried to be made
out and on a searching and on plain reading of the
plaint averments disclosing that a clear right to sue
does not vest with plaintiff as held by the Apex court in
Arivandandam's case, the trial Judge would be a
complete answer for throwing out such plaints and
such orders of rejection of the plaint would be a
complete answer to such suits.