Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: code of civil procedure 1908 rule 16 to 29 procedure of hearing Page 1 of about 39,332 results (0.531 seconds)

Achyut Gopal Mhetras Vs. Gopalrao Ramchanda Mhetras

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1944Bom232; (1944)46BOMLR415

..... cause of action. the application was in the correct form under order xxxiii, rule 2, civil procedure code, 1908, and under rule 4 it was open to the court, if it thought fit, to examine the applicant or his agent regarding the merits of the claim and the property of the applicant, and under rule 5 the court is bound to reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper upon the ..... bom. 29. the point of law is this. the plaintiffs are suing for partition against their father and uncle and those claiming under the uncle, and apaji narhar kulkarni v. ..... pointed out that the application, when dealt with under rule 4, is an ex parte application. the court can hear the applicant or his agent, but it is not entitled to have the question argued on merits, and the learned judge in this case was wrong in hearing the opponents on the question whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action. ..... however, if i thought the learned judge's decision was right, i should not set it aside on the ground that he heard parties whom he ought not to have heard. but the basis on which he held that the plaint disclosed no cause of action was that it is inconsistent with a decision of a full bench of this court in apaji narhar kulkarni v. ramchandra ravji kulkarni i.l.r. (1891) 16 .....

Kanwar Singh Saini. Vs. High Court of Delhi.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the violation of the undertaking given by the appellant to the civil court. the application came up for hearing on 11.9.2003 but none appeared to press the same. the high court disposed of the application vide order dated 11.3.2003 giving liberty to the said applicant to approach the civil court. the said order was passed without issuing notice to the appellant or anyone else.g. mohd. yusuf filed an application dated 15.9.2003 under order xxxix rule 2a of code of civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called `cpc') read with sections 10, 11 ..... . the appellant filed reply to the said application on 22.10.2003 alleging that the execution of the sale deed dated 5.9.2002 and his written statement and the statement made before the court on 29.4.2003 had been obtained by fraud.h. while hearing the said application, the court vide order dated 16.2.2004 recorded that as the appellant had taken inconsistent pleas to his written statement filed earlier and violated the undertaking while making his oral statement, a prima facie case of contempt .....

Parker HannifIn France Sas Vs. Mr.Man Mohan Talwar and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... injunction. an application under order 26 rule 9 and order 39 rule 7 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 was also filed praying for appointment of local commissioner. it is pleaded that the appellant filed its entire documentary evidence in support of the decree at the threshold which are appended to this appeal as annexure a-3 (colly). notice of the suit was issued on 18th june, 2013 for 24th june, 2013. the trial court appointed a kumar paritosh 2014.02.04 16:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ..... document f.a.o. no.4627 of 2013 (o&m) -5- local commissioner for inspection of the premises of the defendant- respondents excluding defendants no.5 and 6. the local commissioner was ordered to submit his report on the next date of hearing i.e. on 24th june, 2013. however, on 24th june, 2013, summons issued ..... notice of motion was issued. the respondents put in appearance. on 16th december, 2013, this court heard the learned counsel and passed the following order : - notice of motion in the application. mr.nipun vashist, advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. after hearing the arguments and being satisfied about the point prima facie that the issue of jurisdiction on which the court has held against the petitioner was not properly considered and having further regard to the fact that there was an interim injunction already issued in favour .....

Pooran Chandra Lohani S/O Sri Jai Dutt Lohani Vs. Kailash Chandra Chil ...

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : AIR2010Utr3

..... 35 of the u.p. re-organization act, 2000 (central act no. 29 of 2000), for its disposal.answer to substantial question of law:8. before further discussion this court thinks it just and proper to quote the relevant provisions of law. rule 2 of order xvii of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as c.p.c.), reads as under:2. procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed. -where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the court may proceed ..... prafulla c. pant, j. 1. this appeal, preferred under section 100 of the of the code of civil procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.1985, whereby the first appellate court (district judge, pithoragarh), dismissed the civil appeal no. 4 of 1984, affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1984, passed by the trial court (civil judge, almora, camp pithoragarh), in suit no. 03 of 1983.2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff / respondent kailash .....

Calcutta Stock Exchange Ltd. Vs. Anuradha Malik

Court : Kolkata

..... of the evidence act, 1872 is not attracted in the facts of the case. i have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. order ix rule 13 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 permits an ex parte decree to be recalled in the event it is established that, the writ of summons of the suit has not been duly served upon the defendant or when the defendant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing in the suit was called on for hearing. it is not the case of the defendant that, in spite of the notice of the suit she was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called ..... title of the plaint. it appears from the writ of summons that the returnable date was extended by an order dated june 21, 2004. it further appears from the endorsement dated march 29, 2004 that a copy of the writ of summons along with copy of the plaint could not be served upon the defendant on march 19, 2004 as the defendant had left 16, netaji subash road, calcutta. she could not be served at 12, loudon street, calcutta as she was not dwelling with the father thereat. the writ of summons .....

Present: Mr. K.R.Dhawan Advocate Vs. Harjinder Singh and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... plaintiff in favour of respondent no.1. the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by both the courts below under order 17 rule 3 of the code of civil procedure, 1908. counsel for the appellant, however, has submitted that when the sub registrar refused to register the sale deed, the remedy is of application under section 73 of the act, which could have been filed within vinod kumar 2014.04.29 16:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4842 of 2012 (o&m) [2 ..... it does not act as a court. in support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of the allahabad high court in the case of shiv charan das and others v. rukmani devi and another, 1975 air (allahabad) 354. during the cours.of hearing, counsel for the appellant was confronted with section 77 of the act which provides that in what circumstances, a suit can be filed. section 77 of the act reads as under:- 77. suit in case of order of refusal by registrar.-- (1) where the registrar refuses to order the ..... presented for registration in accordance with any such decree, and, notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the documents shall be receivable in evidence in such suit. . according to the aforesaid provision, a suit could be filed only vinod kumar 2014.04.29 16:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4842 of 2012 (o&m) [3].***** when the registrar refuses to register a document under section 72 of the act, but there is no provision for filing .....

industrial Cables (India) Ltd. Vs. Goyal Mg Gases Ltd.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [2002]108CompCas895(P& H)

..... no. 542 of 1999. it filed another application under section 151 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, read with rule 9 of the companies (court) rules, 1959, for modification of orders dated 25-7-1997, 5-9-1997 and 3-10-1997 and also for dismissal of company petition no. 108 of 1997 as having become infructuous. the second application was registered as company application no. 11 of 2001.4. after hearing the parties, the learned company judge declared that in view of the embargo contained ..... e., state bank of patiala, till further orders. on 3-10-1997, the learned company judge took notice of the statement made by the appellant's counsel that out of the principal amount of rs. 75 lakhs, a sum of rs. 29 lakhs had already been paid and the remaining amount would be paid within two months or earlier to that and requested for adjournment. the learned company judge accepted his request and adjourned the case with a direction for filing written statement. thereafter ..... dismissed because the order, under appeal, does not suffer from any legal error. a reading of section 22 which has been extracted in the order of the learned company judge shows that once the court finds that an enquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation, no proceedings for winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or .....

V. Venkat Kanna Assistant Professor Depa Vs. 1. Kakatiya University, W ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... 29.06.1999 are very much available to him to press into service when w.p.no.13824 of 2005 is decided by this court on 16.10.2014. having not chosen to do so, and after losing the said case, he cannot institute the present writ petition for the very same objective/relief. the principle of ought and might enshrined under explanations iv & v of section 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 ..... all grounds which are available should be urged at one time and they cannot be urged in a piece meal or on a deferred hearing basis. so was it with regard to relief available in respect of the same cause of action, as per order ii rule 2(3) c.p.c.this apart, the petitioner has also instituted another writ petition w.p. ..... accordance with the guidelines issued by the university grants commission and orders of the state government contained in their g.o.ms.no.208 higher education (ue.ii.i) department dated 29.06.1999. for the sheer lapse of a decades time, from the date of holding the selections, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. the petitioner has instituted several cases in this court and has survived all ..... with the guidelines issued by the university grants commission and the orders of the state government contained in their g.o.ms.no.208 higher education (ue.ii.i) department dated 29.06.1999 and to conduct interview for the post of assistant professor in the department of public administration (human resource management) in the oc category pursuant to notification no.2/2003 dated 10.10 .....

V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viv ...

Court : Karnataka

..... the judgment, if it is delayed any further. 4. in this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. but it is to be kept in view that the code of civil procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at order xx rule (1), as follows: judgment when pronounced.- (1) the court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day ..... enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case no. lac 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. after having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10 ..... (prayer: this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to direct the trial court to take up lac 83/1987 vide annx-c) for early hearing to consider enhancement of compensation u/s 18 of the land acquisition act and dispose of the case on merits at the earliest with specified time limits.) 1. the limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the .....

Rajasthan Cylinder and Container Ltd. and anr. Vs. Essar Steel Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR2009Guj116

..... order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the learned second additional senior civil judge, surat passed below exh. 5 in special civil suit no. 256 of 2003, by which the learned trial court has directed the petitioners original defendants to furnish security of rs. 17 lacs in the form of bank guarantee under order 38 rule 5 of the code of civil procedure, 1908.3. respondent-plaintiff had instituted the special civil suit no. 256 of 2003 in the court of learned civil judge (s.d.), surat to recover rs. 16,22 ..... as the suits are between the same parties. under the circumstances, it will be open for the respective parties to submit an appropriate application before the learned principal district judge, surat for hearing of the civil suit no. 129 of 2003 pending in the court of learned 6th additional senior civil judge, surat and also civil suit no. 256 of 2003 pending in the court of learned 2nd additional senior civil judge, surat be heard together by one court and the learned principal district judge is directed to consider the same. with these, present special .....