Showing : 21-30 of 30 Results

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2003
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 9, 10, 1, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 5, Rule 1-- Use of word 'Shall' in O.5.R.1, O.8.R.1, O.8.R.9 and O.8.R.10 - It cannot be said that the said provisions are mandatory...........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2003
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 6-A-- Counter claim - Three modes - Written statement may itself contain a counter claim, secondly a counter claim may be preferred by way of amendment incorporated subject to the leave of the Court and thirdly counter claim may be filed by way of a subsequent pleading under rule 9 order 8 CPC...........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1998
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 9-- Rejoinder - Principles governing - Enumerated - (a) The plaintiff, cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas by way of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint; (b) In rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts which have been incorporated in the..........
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1997
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 1-- `Pleadings' - Mean plaint and written statement - Additional pleadings in O.8.R.9 not only include additional written statement but also include additional plaint which can be called rejoinder or reply...........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1993
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13-- Judgment when pronounced U.O.8 R.5, cannot be equated with an exparte decree and application U.O.9 R.13 for setting aside the same is not maintainable...........
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1992
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 9-- Additional written statement - Plea sought to be introduced inconsistent and at variance with plea originally taken - Cannot be permitted to be introduced in view of O.6.R.7, except by way of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 - Application U.O.8.R.9 cannot be treated as one under Order 6 Rule 17 as..........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1992
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 10-- Defendant served but not filing written statement-decree passed under order 8 rule 10 - Applica-tion under Order 9 Rule 13 fore setting aside such decree is not main-tainable...........
PATNA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1990
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 10-- Court straight way pronounced judgment followed by a decree when written statement not filed inspite of several adjournments - Application U.O.9 R. 13 CPU is not maintainable...........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1987
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13-- Decree passed U.O.8 R.10 as the defendant failing to file the written statement - petition U.O.9 R.13 is maintainable...........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1986
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 11-- To find out whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not - Court to look only into averments made in plaint assuming them to be correct for the time being - Cannot depend on averment made in written statement or any other evidence produced - To reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 9-Court..........

Showing : 21-30 of 30 Results