Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Geeta Raturi vs Sanjiv Kumar & Anr on 28 November, 2014 cites

Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002

"It is clear from the above that where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the Court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the Court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and the plaintiff fail to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the Court has no other option except to reject the same. A reading of the above provision also makes it clear that power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised at any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or after the issuance of summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial. This position was explained by this Court in Saleem Bhai & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557, in which, while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 608 - Full Document

Rajesh Grover vs Smt. Rita Khurana And Ors. on 8 August, 2005

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is settled principle that rejection of plaint is not to be done at the outset and the same should be done in exceptional cases, at the threshold as it entails serious consequences and only where cases are patently time barred, frivolous and vexatious, claims are put forth, resort is to be made to the said provisions. Reliance can be placed upon Rajesh Grover Vs. Smt. Rita Khurana & others 2006 (2) PLR 244. At the time of rejection of the plaint, only the plaint is to be seen and the defence of the defendants is not to be taken into consideration.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 21 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Raptakos Brett And Co. Ltd vs Ganesh Property on 8 September, 1998

It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property (1998) 7 SCC 184 and Mayar (H.K.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 369 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1