Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
Similarly, in Popat
and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff
Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, this Court has culled
out the legal ambit of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
Roop Lal Sathi vs Nachhattar Singh on 2 November, 1982
(iii) It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be
considered, but the whole plaint has to be read. As was
observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar
Singh Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487, only a part of the plaint
cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is
CS(OS) 572/2022 Page 6 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
Raptakos Brett And Co. Ltd vs Ganesh Property on 8 September, 1998
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:17
disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected.
Similarly, in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh
Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184, it was observed that the
averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to
find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 Order VII of the
Code is applicable.
Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002
(iv) It was further held with reference to Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code in Saleem Bhai v. State of
Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 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 i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time before the
conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an
application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule
11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are
germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the
written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that
stage.
R K Roja vs U S Rayudu & Anr on 4 July, 2016
(v) In R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu, (2016) 14 SCC 275, it
was reiterated that the only restriction is that the
consideration of the application for rejection should
not be on the basis of the allegations made by the
defendant in his written statement or on the basis of the
allegations in the application for rejection of the
plaint. The court has to consider only the plaint as a
whole, and in case the entire plaint comes under the
situations covered by Order VII Rules 11(a) to (f) of
the Code, the same has to be rejected.
Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs Bikram Singh Jaryal on 24 January, 2017
(vi) In Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal,
(2017) 5 SCC 345, this Court observed that the court
can only see whether the plaint, or rather the pleadings
of the plaintiff, constitute a cause of action. Pleadings
in the sense where, even after the stage of written
CS(OS) 572/2022 Page 7 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
Sejal Glass Ltd. vs Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 21 August, 2017
This principle
is also explained in another decision of this Court in
Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Private Ltd.,
(2018) 11 SCC 780 which was again followed in
Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd., (2019) 7
SCC 158.