Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State Of Orissa: Orissa Mining Corporation LTD. : Klockner And Company VS Klockner And Company: Klockner And Company: Orissa Mining Corporation LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Raghwendra Sharan Singh VS Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) By Lrs...
Raghwendra Sharan Singh VS Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) By Lrs - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 283 : Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaint may be rejected if it is barred by law, including limitation. In the case analyzed, the court held that the suit filed in 2003 for declaration that a gift deed dated 06.03.1981 was sham and not binding was clearly barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it was filed over 22 years after the execution of the deed. The court emphasized that when a suit is clearly barred by law, particularly by limitation, and the plaintiff attempts to circumvent the limitation period through ''''clever drafting'''', the court is duty-bound to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) without requiring oral evidence. The rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 was therefore the appropriate remedy for the rejection of an application that was barred by law, and the trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the application on the ground that oral evidence was required to determine limitation.Checking relevance for Ramrameshwari Devi VS Nirmala Devi...
Checking relevance for V. S. Achuthanandan VS P. J. Francis...
V. S. Achuthanandan VS P. J. Francis - 1999 3 Supreme 243 : When an application (election petition) is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the remedy is to allow the petitioner to amend the pleadings. The court cannot reject the petition merely for lack of full particulars of corrupt practices, as the right to amend pleadings exists under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The absence of material particulars can be cured by amendment, and rejection on this ground alone is an illegality of law. The trial court must not equate the cause of action with proof, nor should it dismiss the petition in limine for vague or incomplete particulars, as long as the allegations disclose a reasonable cause of action. The distinction between ''''material facts'''' (which must be pleaded and cannot be added later) and ''''material particulars'''' (which can be amended) is crucial. Therefore, the remedy for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is to permit amendment of the pleadings to include full particulars, rather than dismissing the petition outright.Checking relevance for Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju VS Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy...
Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju VS Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy - 2018 4 Supreme 261 : When an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is rejected, the remedy available to the plaintiff is to file an appeal against the order of rejection. The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a final order that can be challenged through an appeal. The court emphasized that the High Court erred in rejecting the election petition in limine without properly considering the pleadings as a whole, and that the proper course is to allow the petition to proceed to trial unless it is clear that no cause of action exists. The judgment confirms that the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is not a mere procedural step but a substantive decision that can be appealed, and that the court must not decide the merits of the case at this stage. The remedy, therefore, is to appeal the order of rejection to the appropriate appellate court.Checking relevance for Mohan Rawale VS Damodar Tatyaba Alias Dadasaheb...
Checking relevance for MOHAN RAWALE VS DAMODAR TATYABA ALIAS DADASAHEBS...
Checking relevance for Rampal Sihag VS Gurmeet Singh...
Rampal Sihag VS Gurmeet Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1049 : When an application for rejection of a plaint is made under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the remedy for the rejection lies in filing a revision petition before the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC. In the case analyzed, the court allowed the revision petition and ordered the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) on the grounds that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and was barred by law. This establishes that the appellate remedy for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a revision petition under Section 115 CPC, which is the appropriate legal recourse when the trial court rejects a plaint on grounds such as lack of cause of action or being barred by law.Checking relevance for C. P. Singaravelu VS S. Kandasamy...
C. P. Singaravelu VS S. Kandasamy - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1552 : Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, if a plaint is rejected on the ground that the suit is barred by law (such as res judicata), the remedy available to the plaintiff is to file an amended plaint after striking off the matter that renders the suit barred. In the case analyzed, the court directed the plaintiff to file an amended copy of the plaint after striking off the matter related to the common lane, which was the basis of the bar under res judicata. This demonstrates that the primary remedy for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) is the opportunity to amend the plaint to remove the objectionable portion, thereby enabling the suit to proceed on a valid basis.
