Home » Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Md. Equbal v.  Madina Begum

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 26 – Succession Act, 1925 – Section 295 – Whether decree is to be prepared in a probate case ? Whether a contentious proceeding referred under Section 295 of the Act, 1925 has same meaning as of a suit filed under Section 26 of the C.P.C. ? Whether a petition filed under Section 272 or Section 273 of the Act, 1925 can be treated to be a plaint and its presentation before the competent court can be treated to be presentation of a plaint so as to consider it to be a suit instituted under Section 26 r/w Order IV rule 1 CPC. ?

V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K.

Will – A mere exclusion of either brother or sister per se would not create a suspicion unless it is surrounded by other circumstances creating an inference. In a case where a testatrix is accompanied by the sister of the beneficiary of the Will and the said document is attested by the brother, there is no room for any suspicion when both of them have not raised any issue.

Dipali Biswas v. Nirmalendu Mukherjee

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXI – Execution – Provisions available to a judgment-­debtor to stall execution – the case on hand is fit to be included in the syllabus of a law school as a study material for students to get equipped with the various provisions of the Code relating to execution.

Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. In such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 14 (3) – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 16 – Application for leave to produce on record additional documents – Disclosure and discovery of documents – Non filing of the additional documents on the ground of they being voluminous cannot be said to be a reasonable cause for non disclosure/filing along with plaint. AIR 2021 SC 4303

S.T. Gyaltsen v. Kalu Tamang

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ~ Sections 9, 100 and 151 ~ Specific Relief Act, 1963 ~ Sections 10 and 39 ~ Appeal ~ Suit for declaration, specific performance of contract, mandatory injunction, and other consequential reliefs ~ Court cannot make out a case which was not even pleaded.

Balasubramanian v. M. Arockiasamy

Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 – Section 100 – Merely because the High Court refers to certain factual aspects in the case to raise and conclude on the question of law, the same does not mean that the factual aspect and evidence has been reappreciated. 2021 (10) SCALE 179

Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.7 R. 11(d) – Rejection of Plaint – Res judicata – An application under Order 7 Rule 11 must be decided within the four corners of the plaint – Plaint cannot be rejected on ground that it is barred by principles of res judicata. AIR 2021 SC 3802 : 2021 (9) SCALE 241

Manglaben Maganlal Modi v. Jitendrabhai Bhikhabhai Patel

  • Uncategorized

Limitation Act, 1963 – It is true that ordinarily, the Court should be a little slow in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the same is barred by the law of limitation, as the plea of limitation as such could be said to be a mixed question of law and fact. However, when it is absolutely evident either from any statement made in the plaint or from the documents relied upon by the plaintiff that the suit is barred by the law of limitation, then, in such circumstances, the Court should not hesitate in rejecting the plaint.Read More »Manglaben Maganlal Modi v. Jitendrabhai Bhikhabhai Patel

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]