Sie sind auf Seite 1von 27

Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble

High Court, wherein it is held that “Suit is
not Maintainable”

 1. The   respondents   sought   an   order   restraining   the


appellants   herein   from   attending   and   voting   at   a
meeting   of   the   Board   of   Directors.   The   trial   Court
declined to grant the interim relief as sought for. 
An appeal came to be filed by the respondents before
the High Court. The appellants took a definite stand
both   before   the   trial   Court   as   well   as   before   the
High   Court   that   the   suit   itself   is   not   maintainable
and the remedy, if any, to the respondents herein is
to   approach   the   Company   Law   Board   under   Section   186
of the Companies Act, 1956. 
The   High   Court   recorded   a   conclusion   that   the
respondents   would   not   be   able   to   maintain   the
proceedings   before   the   Company   Law   Board.   Impugned
Order cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed.
 1.1. Jyoti Limited v/s Bharat J. Patel., [2015] 0
Supreme (SC) 232.

 2. If   there   is   any   dispute   regarding   bill,


Electricity   Supply   (Consumers)   Regulations   (1984),
Regulations 19(5) provides remedy which is mandatory.
In   case   there   is   any   dispute   or   discrepancy   in   the
bill, no suit is maintainable as was held in the case
of Amitash Textiles v/s U.P.S.E.B., 1996 (1) HVD 402
paragraph 12 and 14.
 2.1. M/s.   Geeta   Pump   (Private)   Limited   v/s
District Judge, Saharanpur, AIR 2000 All 58. ­ I. N.
Mahabaleswara   Madyasta   v/s   Karnataka   Electricity
Board, Bangalore, AIR 1994 Karnatak 74. 

 3. Shebaiti   rights   relinquished   by   execution   of


instrument   ­   Suit   for   cancellation   of   instrument
filed   by   persons   seven   degrees   away   from   the   common
ancestor   ­   Whether   maintainable?   ­   Held   No.   ­   when
presumptive   reversioners   were   alive   suit   is   not
maintainable.
 3.1. Har Prasad Singh v/s Subedar Singh, AIR 1983
All 415.

 4. A   suit   by   a   co­parcener   owning   a   half   share   in


the estate for an injunction to restrain the widow of
the   deceased   co­parcener   from   committing   acts   of
waste   is   not   maintainable   when   the   only   act   alleged
and   proved   is   that   she   had   made   an   unsuccessful
attempt to  transfer her share in favour of  the sons
of her former husband prior to the suit, because the
act alleged does not constitute an act of waste or an
act   injurious   to   the   reversionary   interest.   A   suit
for   injunction   to   restrain   any   limited   owner   from
wasting the property to the detriment of reversionary
interest   cannot   be   filed   on   imaginary   grounds   or   on
imaginary injurious acts. Acts of waste or injurious
acts must be positive acts so as to cause real danger
to the reversionary interest. Mere unfounded charges
of   waste   do   not   entitle   the   next   reversioner   to
obtain   an   injunction   to   restrain   waste.   AIR   1916   PC
117, relied upon.
 4.1.  Smt. Lalti v/s Hira Lal, AIR 1963 All 392.

 5. Civil   P.   C.   1908,   O.29,   R.1   ­   Suit   against


unregistered body and all members not impleaded, such
suit   is   not   maintainable.   The   only   way   in   which   it
can   be   sued   is   by   impleading   all   its   members
individually.   A   suit   brought   against   it   and   some   of
its   members   is   liable   to   be   dismissed   as   not
maintainable.
 5.1. Board   of   Directors,   Y.   M.   C.   A.   v/s   R.   H.
Niblett, AIR 1957 All 219.

 6. Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 6 ­ Possession
­ Nature of occupation on behalf of other ­ Suit not
maintainable.   Where   A   was   entrusted   by   B   to   look
after   certain   plot   of   land   during   his   absence   from
tile   country,   B's   occupation   is   not   such   possession
as to entitle him to a remedy under section 9 of the
Specific Relief Act against A for and on whose behalf
he had been holding the plot.
 6.1.  Sobha v/s Ram Phal, AIR 1957 All 394.

 7. Specific   Relief   Act,   1963,   S.38   ­   Suit   for


injunction ­ Suppression of facts ­ Injunction which
is   an   equitable   relief   would   not   be   granted   to   a
person   who   does   not   come   to   the   Court   with   clean
hands,   and   who   is   guilty   of   suppression   of   facts   ­
Earlier suit for injunction withdrawn by plaintiff ­
Subsequent   suit   for   same   relief   filed   without
disclosing   fact   of   withdrawal   of   earlier   suit   ­   Not
maintainable.
 7.1. Jonnala   Sura   Reddy   v/s   Tityyagura   Srinivasa
Reddy, AIR 2004 AP 222.

 8.  Civil P. C. 1908, O.20, R.12 ­ Suit for recovery
of   possession   ­   Premises   amenable   to   provisions   of
Rent   Control   Act   ­   Suit   not   maintainable   by
camouflaging   by   inclusion   of   ancillary   relief   of
recovery of rents etc. or otherwise.
 8.1. Yelamati   Veera   Venkata   Jaganadha   Gupta   v/s
Vejju Venkateswara Rao, AIR 2002 AP 369.

 9. The plaintiffs brought a suit for cancellation of
a   registered   Kabuliat   executed   by   defendant   No.1   in
favour   of   plaintiff   No.1   without   his   knowledge   in
respect   of   suit   land   after   declaring   the   said
kabuliat   to   be   false,   fabricated   and   illegal
document.   The   plaintiff   1   had   alleged   that   the   suit
land   had   been   given   to   plaintiffs   Nos.2   and   3   by
exchange   and   while   they   were   in   peaceful   possession
defendant   No.1   trespassed   upon   the   land   and   with   a
view   to   support   his   possession   in   the   Criminal
proceedings   started   against   him   executed   this
fraudulent kabuliat.
Held that the suit as framed was not maintainable. If
the   plaintiffs'   case   was   that   the   Kabuliyat   alone
will   not   pass   any   title   to   the   defendant,   the
Kabuliyat will not affect the title of the plaintiff
and   the   question   of   the   document   to   be   void   or
voidable   as   against   the   plaintiff   did   not   arise.   It
the contention was that the document was not binding
on   the   plaintiffs   as   it   was   obtained   by   fraud   and
fabrication,   even   then   the   plaintiffs   not   being   a
party   to   the   document   and   the   defendant   No.   1   not
having   executed   the   deed   for   or   on   behalf   of   the
plaintiff No. 1, the question of getting it cancelled
under section 39  of the Specific Relief Act did not
arise.   On   the   plaint   allegations,   as   between   the
defendant   No.   1   and   plaintiffs   Nos.   2   and   3,   the
question was which document was to prevail ­ whether
the   exchange   or   the   Kabuliyat,   and   as   between   the
plaintiffs   Nos.   2   and   3   and   plaintiff   No.   1   the
question was who had a better title to the property.
It will thus be adjudicating the respective claims of
plaintiffs   2   and   3   and   defendant   No.   1   to   the
property   and   relief   under   section   39   was   not   an
appropriate relief under these circumstances.
 9.1. Niasha   Ghose   v/s   Kari   Siddek   Ali,   AIR   1966
Assam 4.

 10. Where a suit was filed for declaration that the
suit property was an old Hindu Hemadpanthi temple of
Shri Mahadeo i.e. a Shivalaya which was also known in
the   past   as   Siddeshwar   temple   in   which   Hindus   have
right   to   worship   Shri   Mahadeo   and   other   deities   in
that   temple,   and   founded   on   that   relief   was   the
relief   claimed   against   the   defendants   for   not   to
interfere or disturb Hindus of village in general and
the   plaintiffs   in   particular   in   their   vahivat   and
worship   of   all   the   deities   in   the   Hindu   temple
described   in   the   suit,   and   there   was   also   a   prayer
for alternative relief to the effect that the Muslims
of   that   village   in   general   and   the   defendants   in
particular   be   ordered   to   deliver   possession   of   the
said   property   in   suit   to   the   plaintiffs   as
representatives   of   deity   and   of   the   Hindus   of
village,   in   the   event,   court   finds   that   the
plaintiffs   were   not   in   possession   of   the   suit
property   on   the   date   of   institution   of   the   suit   by
virtue of S. 19 read with Sections 79 and 80 of the
act,   the   suit   as   filed   is   clearly   barred   by   law,
because   the   reliefs   claimed   by   the   plaintiffs   would
require the court to examine as to whether the Trust
exists and  whether such Trust is a public Trust and
whether suit property is the property of such Trust,
and it was not only suit for declaration of title of
suit property.
 10.1. Bashir   Abbas   Kudale   v/s   Shri   Mahadeo,   AIR
2003 Bombay 224.
 11. The father of the petitioners had become owner of
the subject land under the provisions of the Tenancy
Act and the petitioners were seeking repossession of
the   said   land   from   respondent   solely   on   the   ground
that the subject land could not have been transferred
by   way   of   sale   of   respondent   without   the   previous
sanction  of the Collector and failure to  do so made
the   agreement   of   sale   invalid   u/S.   43(2)   of   the
Bombay   Tenancy   Act.   Thus   the   petitioners   claim   for
repossession of the subject land from respondent was
solely   based   on   the   scheme   of   the   Tenancy   Act.
Section   85   of   the   Tenancy   Act   creates   a   bar   of
jurisdiction of Civil Court to settle, decide or deal
with   any   question   which   is   by   or   under   the   Tenancy
Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by
the   Mamlatdar   or   Tribunal,   a   Manager,   the   Collector
or the Revenue Tribunal in appeal or revision.
 11.1. Himatrao   Ukha   Mali   v/s   Popat   Devram   Patil,
AIR 1999 Bombay 10.

 12. Hindu   Law   ­   Religious   endowment   ­   Suit   against


shebait by a person as next friend of Deity ­ Person
not so appointed by Court ­ Suit not maintainable .
 12.1. Jogesh Chandra Bera v/s Sri Iswar Braja Raj
Jew Thakur, AIR 1981 Calcutta 259.

 13. Suit   for   declaration   that   lease   in   favour   of


defendant is null and void ­ Defendant admittedly in
possession   ­   Suit   not   maintainable   without   further
relief of possession.
 13.1.  Ghulam Mohiuddin v/s The Official Assignee,
AIR   1978   Calcutta   463.   ­   AIR   1972   SC   2685   and   AIR
1971 SC 761 relied upon.

 14. To   allow   a   limited   company   to   be   sued   in   the


business   name,   would   be   an   inroad   upon   the   Code   of
Civil   Procedure   in   the   sense   that   a   suit   would   be
competent   against   a   defendant   which   had   no   legal
basis and no  legal  character. It is only because  an
individual or a body of individuals carry on business
in   a   certain   name   that   the   compendious   name   is
recognised under the provisions of Order 30 of CPC so
that   it   is   known   that   the   legal   persons   are   the
persons sued in that name. If a suit is filed against
limited company, the suit is not maintainable and is
incompetent.   Limited   Company   is   not   a   person   within
the meaning of O.30 of the Code. The word 'person' in
O.30   refers   to   individuals   and   not   to   corporations
because   corporations   are   dealt   with   in   Order   29   of
the   Code.   Further   O.30   does   not   recognise   a   trading
name   but   it   recognises   only   the   individual   persons
who are legal entities carrying on trade in a name.
 14.1. Modi   Vanaspati   Manufacturing   Company   v/s
Katihar   Jute   Mills   (Private)   Limited,   AIR   1969
Calcutta 496(DB).

 15. Civil   P.   C.   1908,   O.1,   R.10,   O.20,   R.18   ­   Suit


for   partition   ­   Necessary   parties   ­   Absence   of
impleadment   of   first   class   heirs   i.e.   daughters   of
Hindu   ancestor   who   were   sisters   of   plaintiff   ­   Suit
not maintainable.
 15.1. Raja   Ram   Singh   v/s   Arjun   Singh,   AIR   2002
Delhi   338   (DB)   ­   Biswanath   Panda   and   others,
Appellants   v.   Dr.   Lokanath   Panda,   AIR   1977   Orissa
170.

 16. Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, S.51 , S.50 and
S.2(10) (as amended by Bombay Act 28 of 1953) ­ Suit
filed   by   some   of   the   trustees   falling   within   the
scope   of   S.50   ­   Consent   of   Charity   Commissioner   not
obtained ­ Suit not maintainable in view of S.51 ­ It
cannot   be   said   that   phrase   "the   persons   having   an
interest   in   any   public   trust"   in   S.51   would   not
include trustees of the trust and hence provisions of
S.51 cannot be invoked.
 16.1. Patel   Nanji   Devji   v/s   Patel   Jivraj   Manji,
AIR   1988   Gujarat   182.   ­   Workmen   of   Lokashikshana
Trust   v/s   M/s.   Lokashikshana   Trust,   AIR   2001
Karnataka 212. 

 17. A   suit   for   declaring   a   registered   document   as


null   and   void   has   to   be   preferred   with   in   3   years
from   the   date   of   registration   of   the   said   document.
If   it   is   not   filed   with   the   said   period   of   three
years, suit is held to be not maintainable. 
 17.1. Becharbhai Zaverbhai v/s Shivabhai, 2013 (1)
GLR 398. ­ Supreme Court judgment followed.
 18. A   suit   is   preferred   before   the   Rent   Court   by
tenant   against   landlord   inter   alia   praying   that
landlord   be   restrained   from   interfering   from   the
lawful   possession   of   the   tenant.   If   plaintiff   fails
to establish that he is the tenant and  defendant  is
the   landlord,   suit   before   the   Rent   Court   is   not
maintainable.
 18.1. Jagjit Arora, 2013 (2) GLR 1063.

 19. Partnership   Act,   1932   S.69(2)   ­   Suit   by   firm   ­


Person   suing   not   shown   as   partner   in   Register   of
firms   at   the   time   of   its   institution   ­   Suit   not
maintainable.
 19.1. Bharath Trust v/s D. Divakara Rao, AIR 1993
Kerala 88.

 20. A  suit  by  a  partner/partners  of  an   unregistered


firm against the firm or fellow partners for accounts
without a prayer  for dissolution  of the firm is not
maintainable.   The   trial   Court   has   rightly   held   that
the suit is not maintainable.
 20.1. Neelakantan   Omana   v/s   Neelakantan
Raveendran, AIR 1993 Kerala 196.

 21. Civil   P.   C.   1908,   S.20   ,   Expln.II   ­   Cause   of


action not arising at the place of the branch office
of   Corporation   ­   Suit   not   maintainable   in   the   Court
of that place.
 21.1. Nedungadi   Bank   Ltd.   v/s   Central   Bank   of
India Ltd., AIR 1961 Kerala 50. 

 22.   Securitisation   and   Reconstruction   of   Financial


Assets   and   Enforcement   of   Security   Interest   Act,
2002, S.34 , S.13 , S.17 ­ Ouster of jurisdiction of
Civil   Court   ­   Civil   Suit   by   guarantor   claiming
injunction   restraining   secured   creditor   from
proceeding   with   demand   notice   ­   Guarantor   actively
participated in creating security interest in favour
of   secured   creditor   ­   Guarantor   equally   liable   for
default   on   part   of   borrower   ­   Whether   property   of
guarantor was fraudulently given as security interest
­   Can   be   gone   into   by   Tribunal   on   application   by
guarantor   u/S.17   of   Act   ­   Civil   suit   not
maintainable.
 22.1. S.   Balammal   W/o.   A.   Shanmugavel   v/s   M/s.
Jayasudha Mineral Water Private Ltd., AIR 2010 Madras
112.

 23. Civil   P.   C.   1908,   S.9   ­   Land   Acquisition   Act,


1894,   S.11   ­   Jurisdiction   of   Civil   Court   ­   Land
acquisition   ­   Suit   for   declaration   that   award   of
acquisition   officer   was   invalid   on   ground   of
acquisition being tainted with mala fides ­ Evidence
that   notification   was   not   tainted   with   mala   fides   ­
Moreover   since   matter   falls   within   exclusive
jurisdiction   of   authorities   under   Act   ­   Cannot   be
adjudicated by Civil Court.
 23.1. Union   of   India   v/s   Krishnaswamy,   AIR   1996
Madras 238. 

 24.   Civil   P.   C.,   1908,   S.9   ­   Civil   suit   ­


Maintainability   ­   Suit   claiming   right   to   appoint
competent   persons   for   recitation   of   Divya   Prabandam
in   Adyabaga   Goshti   before   deity   ­   Right   neither
attached   to   any   office   in   temple   nor   for   its   non­
performance claimant liable to any punishment ­ Claim
was not for civil right ­ Suit not maintainable.
 24.1. Sadhu Sri Vaishnavar Nambi Srinivasa Iyengar
v/s K. K. V. Annan Srinivasachariar, AIR 1990 Madras
375.

 25. A person cannot seek to advance the claims of a
group   of   persons   or   community   without   adopting   the
procedure under O.1, R.8, Code of Civil Procedure, if
the   relief   is   prayed   for   only   on   the   basis   of   the
rights of the community as such. A distinction has to
be maintained between cases where the individual put
forward a right which he has acquired as a member of
a   community   and   cases   where   the   right   of   the
community   is   pot   forward   in   the   suit.   If   it   is   the
former,   the   individual   is   not   debarred   from
maintaining the suit in his own right in respect of a
wrung dune  to him even though the act complained  of
may   also   be   injurious   to   some   other   persons   having
the   same   right.   If   it   is   the   latter,   the   procedure
under   O.1,   R.8,   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   has   to   be
followed   and   without   doing   so,   no   relief   could   he
granted to the individual concerned.
 25.1. Assistant   Commissioner,   Hindu   Religious   and
Charitable Endowment, Salem v/s Nattamai K.S. Ellappa
Mudaliar, AIR 1987 Madras 187.

 26.   Civil   P.   C.   1908,   O.6,   R.4   ­   Pleading   ­


Particulars ­ Suit for declaration of sale as void ­
Allegations   of   fraud   and   misrepresentation   ­
Particulars   not   given   and   not   substantiated   by
acceptable evidence ­ Suit not maintainable.
 26.1. Padma Bewa v/s Krupasindhu Biswal, AIR 1986
Orissa 97.

 27. Where   a   decree   for   arrears   of   rent   is   passed


against   the   Karta   of   a   Hindu   joint   family,   which
continues   to   be   joint,   the   decree   is   really   one
creating   liability   against   all   the   members   of   the
family and any objection from a member of the family
who   must   be   taken   to   be   one   against   whom   the   rent
decree   has   been   passed   can   only   be   sustained   under
Section   47   of   CPC   and   a   separate   suit   is   not
maintainable.
 27.1. Ramakrishna   Deo   v/s   Balyokrishna   Das,   AIR
1970 Orissa 156.

 28. If   the   plaintiff   comes   with   a   clean   case   that


though   there   was   a   partition,   yet   there   was   no
division by metes and bounds, the court can certainly
reopen   a   partition   if   it   is   proved   to   the
satisfaction   of   the   court   that   though   there   was   a
partition   of   shares,   still   the   properties   were   not
divided by metes and bounds but if it is not proved
to   the   satisfaction   of   the   court   that   though   there
was   a   partition   of   shares   and   the   properties   were
divided by metes and bounds, then in that situation,
suit is not maintainable.
 28.1. Most. Marjadi Devi v/s Jagarnath Singh, AIR
1983 Patna 129.

 29. Where   certain   parties   were   not   claiming   through


the   landlords   of   the   tenant   but   claimed   independent
rights   of   ownership   over   the   demised   shop   and   had
denied the rights of the landlords, the provisions of
O.35, R.5 were clearly attracted and the tenant could
not   maintain   the   inter­pleader   suit   against   the
landlords   compelling   them   to   interplead   with   the
aforesaid parties.
 29.1. Jugal Kishore v/s Bhagwan Dass, AIR 1990 P&H
82.

 30. A Suit was filed for removal of public nuisance
created by way of wrongful act of defendant affecting
the   public   way.   Whether   plaintiff­respondent   No.   3
was not entitled to file the suit on his own?­ Held
that:­   in   the   case   on   hand,   it   does   not   involve
determination   of   any   right   independent   under   sub­
section (2) of Section 91 of CPC. Plaintiff ought to
have   invoked   the   assistance   of   Advocate   General   or
can seek leave of the court to file a suit by two or
more persons for removal of public nuisance affecting
the public way.
 30.1. Kanti   v/s   U.   I.   T.,   Bikaner,   AIR   1998
Rajasthan 108.

 31. A suit by one of the partners of a dissolved firm
for rendition of accounts and recovery of money as may
be found due to him against the other partners, one of
whom is an undischarged insolvent, is not maintainable
as against the undischarged insolvent in the absence of
leave of  the  insolvency  Court by  virtue  of  S.17  read
with   S.46(3)   of   the   Presidency   Towns   Insolvency   Act.
Since   all   the   partners   are   necessary   parties   to   such
suit  and  it  would be  impossible  to  do any accounting
between them in the absence of any one of them the suit
would   be   equally   incompetent   against   the   other
partners.
 31.1. Narsingh   Das   v/s   Bhairon   Dan,   AIR   1961
Rajasthan   81.   ­   Relied   upon   in     AIR   1976   Rajasthan
249.

 32. Wakf   Act   1995   ­   Section   89   ­   Notice   of   suits   by


parties   against   Wakf   Board   is   mandatory   ­­   No   power
conferred on Tribunal or Court to dispense with issuance of
notice irrespective of fad that no relief, either interim
or   otherwise,   was   sought   for   against   Board   ­   Tribunal
committed   an   illegality   in   dispensing   with   issuance   of
notice to Board ­ Suit not maintainable for non­compliance
of mandatory provision. 
 32.1. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Hyderabad v/s Tati
Venkata Sheshagiri Rao, 2013 (1) ALD 390.

 33. Civil Procedure Code, Sec.47 ­ Or.21, Rules 95 & 96 ­
First   respondent,   Auction   purchaser   filed   suit   for
declaration   of   title   and   for   recovery   of   possession   and
also for mandatory injunction for removal of constructions
­ Appellant, purchaser of suit property contends that suit
not   maintainable   and   is   barred   u/Sec.47   CPC   and   first
respondent, auction purchaser could have secured possession
by   filing   application   under   R.95   of   Or.21   and   since
limitation   therefor   expired   long   back,   suit   not
maintainable ­ Trial Court decreed suit and same affirmed
in   appeal.   Rights   of   auction   purchaser   ­   Stated  ­   Sec.47
mandates   that   all   questions   arising   between   parties   to
suit, in which decree passed, or persons claiming through
them   shall   be   determined   by   executing   Court   and   not   by
separate   suit.   Supreme   Court   observed   that   auction
purchaser can avail remedy of filing suit for possession ­
Purport   of   Explanation   ­II   of   Sec.47   CPC   not   canvassed
before   Supreme   Court,   obviously   because   occasion   did   not
arise ­ Permissibility of filing a separate suit inspite of
bar contained in Explanation ­ II of Sec.47 did not fall
for   consideration   before   their   Lordships   ­   If   such
situation   existed,   naturally   said   observation   would   have
assumed status of law of land. 
 33.1. Vegendla Subba Rao v/s. Puwada Srinivasa Rao, [2005]
0 Supreme(AP) 614/ [2006] 2 CivCC 32/ [2005] 5 ALD 260/
[2005] 6 ALT 106/ [2005] 3 LS 19/ [2005] 0 AIR(AP) 449.

 34. Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   Order   23,   Rule   3­A   ­


Maintainability   of   Suit   ­   Plaintiff   contending   that   in
earlier suit defendant had fraudulently obtained compromise
decree ­ Praying to declare that decree as void and illegal
­ In substance prayer is for setting aside decree ­ Hence,
present   suit   not   maintainable   ­   It   is   for   Court   which
passed   compromise   decree   to   decided   whether   it   was
fraudulent or illegal. 
Held: No independent suit can be filed for setting aside a
compromise decree on the round that the compromise was not
lawful, in view of the bar contained in Rule 3A of Order
XXIII   CPC.   Though   the   prayer   is   not   to   set   aside   the
decree, but to declare the decree is void, illegal and not
binding, is in effect, to set aside the decree only, on the
ground that it is not lawful. Hence, the present suit is
not   maintainable.   Consequently,   Trial   Court   has   erred   in
entertaining   the   suit   and   in   passing   the   decree.   First
Appellate   Court   has   not   considered   the   point   of
maintainability   and   bar   of   suit   and   has   committed
illegality   in   dismissing   the   appeal   of   defendant.   In   the
circumstances   of   the   case,   the   remedy   available   to
plaintiff   is   to   approach   the   Court   which   recorded   the
compromise and made the decree in terms thereof in OS No.
584/89 and establish that the same was not lawful and that
there   was   no   compromise,   in  which   event,   the   Court   which
recorded   the   compromise   should   consider   and   decide   the
question   as   to   whether   there   was   a   lawful   compromise   or
not.
 34.1. Syed   Yusuff   v/s   Fathimabi,   [2008]   0   Supreme(Kar)
740/ [2009] 1 KLO 597/ [2009] 0 ILR(Kar) 510/ [2009] 1
KCCR 824.

 35. Order   8   Rule   9   ­   Order   8   Rule   9   ­Suit   filed   before


Civil Judge (Junior Division) ­IA filed by the defendants
for   filing   additional   written   statement   questioning   the
maintainability of suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Court ­ rejection of ­disputed claims being around 4 lakhs
­rejection bad in law ­suit not maintainable for improper
valuation   and   non­payment   of   Court   fee   on   the   resultant
value. 
Even according to plaintiffs, the disputed excess payment
do not exceed more than Rs. 4 lakhs atleast to that extent
the   plaintiff   should   have   valued   the   suit   and   paid   the
Court fee accordingly but by clever camouflaged techniques.
The   disputed   letter   has   been   used   as   a   ruse   to   file   the
suit   although   the   disputed   letter   has   no   bearing   on   the
facts of the case and does not refer to the plaintiff or
any of his claims in any manner. In view of the admission
of the value of the disputed claims being around 4 lakhs
and   the   Court   fee   should   paid   thereon.   Therefore,   the
rejection of the request for amendment is bad in law. In
view of the material available on record, the suit is not
maintainable   for   improper   valuation   and   non­payment   of
Court fee.
 35.1. Managing   Director,   Krishna   Bhagya   Jala   Nigam
Niyamith v/s Mareppa M.Naik, [2003] 3 RCR(Civ) 9/ [2003]
0 AIR (kar) 115/ [2002] 0 Supreme(kar) 415.

 36. This   is   a   clear   admission   and   plea   of   the   plaintiff


that appellant was in possession of the Suit Chawl No. 4
and   admittedly,   there   is   no   prayer   as   regards   seeking
possession of the Suit Chawl No. 4 in the plaint. Section
42 of S.P. Act ­ Declaration suit for title and possession
with   application   for   Injunction­Absence   of   prayer   for
possession­Declaration suit not maintainable.­ The suit is
hit by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. As found by
the   fact­finding   Courts.   The   plaintiffs   have   not   sought
possession   of   those   properties.   They   merely   claimed   a
declaration   that   they   are   the   owners   of   the   suit
properties. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. 
That appellant was in possession of the suit. There is no
prayer as regards seeking possession of the suit. 
The case is squarely covered by the aforesaid Supreme Court
Judgment (Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi. AIR 1972 SC 2685) and
therefore, the suit is not maintainable.
 36.1. Jagdishsingh   Deonandansingh   v/s   Feku   Jamnaprasad
Yadav and others, [1997] 4 AllMR 192/ [1997] 2 MhLJ 128/
[1997] 1 BomCR 457/ [1996] 0 Supreme(Mah) 525.

 37. The subject matter of the two suits being on the same
cause   of   action  viz.   infringement   and   passing   off   by   the
defendants and the identity of relief prayed for in the two
suits would amply show that the subject matter of the two
suits   is   the   same.   The   contention   that   the   packaging
(carton) of the goods of defendant was discontinued and new
packaging   more   similar   to   the   plaintiffs'   goods   had   been
started by defendant No. 1 from, 2003 would not alter the
cause   of   action   based   upon   which   the   first   suit   was
instituted.   Distinction   has   to   be   made   between   the   facts
constituting   the   cause   of   action   and   facts   which   are
necessary to establish those facts comprised in the cause
of   action.   The   change   in   the   packaging   by   the   defendant
would at most be regarded as a piece of evidence which may
be   necessary   to  prove   the   fact   constituting  the  cause   of
action   based   on   which   the   suit   is   instituted   for   the
infringement/passing off by the defendant of his goods as
that   of   the   plaintiff.   The   fact   comprising   the   cause   of
action is the act of the defendant in allegedly infringing
the   trademark   of   the   plaintiffs   and   using   the   packaging
deceptively   similar   to   that   of   the   plaintiff.   The
subsequent packaging/trade dress adopted by the defendants
would   constitute   evidence   of   such   fact   but   would   not   by
itself constitute a fresh cause of action for a second suit
to   be   filed   during   the   pendency   of   the   first   suit.     The
institution of the present suit without leave of the Court
wherein   the   first   suit   has   been   instituted   would   prima
facie   render   the   instant   suit   not   maintainable   on   the
authority of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarguja
Transport Service's case, (AIR 1987 SC 88).
 37.1. Heinz   Italia   v/s   Dabur   India   Limited,   [2003]   0
Supreme(Cal) 444

 38. The exclusion of the benefit/usufruct of the property
rented   and   is   being  excluded   from   receiving  any  rent   for
the   suit   property.   The   suit   property   was   rented   in
September, 1973 however, the appellant had slept over his
right for more than 12 years and has filed the suit only in
May, 1986 which is not maintainable and time barred as per
the provisions of the Limitation Act.
 38.1. Maha   Singh   v/s   Anand   Singh,   [2009]   0   Supreme(Del)
36/ [2009] 112 DRJ 460/ [2009] 156 DLT 674/ [2009] 108
DRJ 152/ [2010] 8 RCR(Civ) 1124.

 39. Civil   Procedure   Code,   1908   ­   Order   7   Rule   11   ­   It


requires the court to treat each and every averment made in
the plaint to be correct — Pleadings in the plaint have to
be   read   meaningfully   —   In   a   suit   for   partition   every
plaintiff is a defendant and every defendant is a plaintiff
— Second suit on the same cause of action with identity of
relief i.e. material identity and not identity of language
— Held that second suit not maintainable — Plaint rejected.
 39.1.
 39.2. Mahender   Kr.Lamba   v/s   Satender   Prakash   Lamba,
Citation: [2007] 99 DRJ 288/ [2007] 0 Supreme(Del) 2135.

 40. H.P. Co­operative Societies Act, 1968 ­ Section 72 and
93 — Limit was sanctioned by bank — Overdrawn — Proceedings
initiated   before   the   Registrar   —   Plaintiff   filed   present
civil suit — Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed
by defendant in the civil suit — Only remedy available to
the   petitioner   is   by   way   of   appeal   as   per   proviso   of
Section   93   —   Suit   not   maintainable   —   Application   under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed.
 40.1. Himachal Pradesh State Co Operative Bank Limited v/s
Gulshan   Kumar   And   Brothers,   [2001]   0   Supreme(Del)   55/
[2001] 3 AD(Del) 474/ [2001] 91 DLT 140/ [2001] 58 DRJ
248.

 41. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ­ Section 8 —
Arbitration Agreement — Reference — Power, Ambit and Scope
of — Maintainability — Wider than Section 34 — Appears to
be a natural Jurisdiction prudential progression — Allowed
—   Parties   referred   to   arbitrator   —   Suit   rendered
infructuous. 
 41.1. MMTC   Limited   v/s   Shyam   Singh   Chaudhary,   [2001]   89
DLT 683/ [2001] 57 DRJ 743/ [2001] 2 AD(Del) 444/ [2000]
0 Supreme(Del) 985.

 42. Civil Procedure Code 1908 ­ Section 9 — bar on suit to
he filed by unregistered firm — suit filed by the partner
of an unregistered firm — suit not maintainable on behalf
of such firm. 
Partnership   Act   ­   Section   69(2)   —   effect   of   non
registration of the firm — suit filed by a partner seeking
allotment   of   land   to   the   firm   on   the   basis   of   the   firm
doing the business of Circus — suit not maintainable — suit
dismissed. 
 42.1. Lalit   Kumar   v/s   Municipal   Corporation   Of   Delhi,
[1994] 4 AD(Del) 169/ [1994] 31 DRJ 481/ [1994] 56 DLT
123/ [1994] 0 Supreme(Del) 627.
 43. RDBI Act,  ­ U/s 18 ­ no Court or other authority have
or   is   entitled   to   exercise   any   jurisdiction,   power   or
authority in relation to the matters specified in Section
17. As the attachment and sale of the property for recovery
of the amount of debt is made by the Tribunal, in view of
the power delegated under Section 17 of the Act, we hold
that against such action of the DRT or the order passed by
the Recovery Officer at the instance of the DRT, no suit is
maintainable   before   a   Civil   Court   in   view   of   the   bar   of
jurisdiction under Section 18. For the said reason, we hold
that   in   the   present   case   the   Civil   Court   has   no
jurisdiction   to   declare   that   the   3rd   respondent   had   no
right   to   disturb   the   right   of   the   plaintiffs   in   the
aforesaid   properties   nor   could   have   passed   a   permanent
injunction on the 3rd respondent restraining it from taking
any   action   causing   loss   or   damage   to   the   share   of   the
plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties.
 43.1. Naliniben Rajnikant Patel Through Power Of Attorney
v/s Rashmikant Manubhai Amin,[2010] 0 Supreme(Guj) 189/
[2010] 0 AIR(Guj) 130/ [2010] 3 GLR 2608.

 44. Civil   Procedure   Code,   1908   ­   Section   16(c)   ­   Court


lacks   territorial   jurisdiction   ­   Suit   not   maintainable   ­
plaintiff­Bank cannot be permitted either to amend plaint
or   relinquish  a  part   of  a  claim  so  as  to   bring   the  suit
within jurisdiction of this Court ­ An order passed by this
Court   allowing   amendment   or   relinquishment   of   a   part   of
claim ­ Would he bad since such order would be by a court
having no territorial jurisdiction.
 44.1. State   Bank   Of   India   v/s   Ohri   Lime   And   Chemical
Industries, [2000] 1 CurLJ(HP) 426/ [1999] 0 Supreme(HP)
247.

 45. Code Of Civil Procedure ­ Sec 9 read with Partnership
Act   ­   Section   69(2)   When   there   is   change   in   the
constitution   of   the   Firm   and   some   partner   is   retired   or
added   all   should   be   registered   with   the   Firm   and   a   suit
filed   after   the   change   in   the   constitution   of   the   firm,
until   the   change   is   notified   to   the   Registrar   is   not
maintainable. 
 45.1. Kuldip   Raj   v/s   Medicos   Chemists   And   Druggists,
[1998]   0   KashLJ   67/   [1997]   0   SriLJ   361/   [1997]   0
Supreme(J&K) 56.

 46. Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act,   1996­Section   8(1)­


Due   to   availability   of   arbitration   clause   suit   not
maintainable­When   parties   had   agreed   that   in   case   of
differences or disputes matter be referred to arbitration
in   that   circumstances   court   shall   refer   parties   to
arbitration when other conditions are satisfied. 
Sugal   &   Damani   Finlease   Limited   v/s   P.Subramania   Reddy,
[1999] 0 Supreme(Mad) 1026/ [2000] 2 CTC 74/ [2001] 1 ARBLR
263/ [2000] 1 LW 828.

 47. Industrial   Disputes   Act,   1947­Section   17(2)­Suit   for


declaring   order   of   lower   Court   a   nullity­Held,   suit   not
maintainable due to bar u/s 17(2).
 47.1. A.K. Loganathan v/s R. Beema Rao, [1980] 1 MLJ 281/
[1980] 93 LW 95/ [1979] 0 Supreme(Mad) 431. 

 48. Leave   granted   to   institute   a   suit   under   Section   92,


C.P.C.   without   notice   to   the   defendants   is   void   and   the
logical   conclusion   that   followed   will   be   that   the
institution of the suit and the numbering of it also cannot
be   said   to   be   valid   in   law,   and   therefore,   the   suit   is
liable to be dismissed.
 48.1. N.Lakshmanan   Chettiar   v/s   P.L.Ekappa   Chettiar,
[1990] 1 MLJ 113/ [1989] 0 Supreme(Mad) 487.

 49. Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act,   1996­­Ss.   5,   8   and


34   ­   dispute   covered   under   the   arbitration   clause   of   the
agreement   of   hire­purchase­­to   be   referred   to   the
arbitrator­­civil   suit   not   maintainable­­allegation   of
making full payment­­to be examined by arbitrator. 
 49.1. Brahan Dutt Shukla v/s Ashok Leyland Finance, [2004]
1   ArbLR   493/   [2003]   2   ArbLR   541/   [2004]   2   JLJ   185/
[2003]   4   MPHT   564/   [2004]   1   MPLJ   337/   [2003]   0
Supreme(MP) 1059. 

 50. Civil P.C., 1908 ­­ O. 23 Rr. 3 proviso and 3A r/w S.
151   ­   compromise   ­   can   be   challenged   by   filing   petition
under R. 3 proviso ­ separate suit not maintainable ­ such
petition can be filed under R. 3, proviso r/w S. 151.
Balmukund   v/s   Bhujbal   Singh,   [2002]   0   Supreme(MP)   100/
[2002] 2 Vidhibh 45.
 51. An advertisement Was made in Hindi Daily newspaper Nav
Bharat   by   the   Pleasure   Drinks   Pvt.   Ltd.,   Happy   Chambers,
Maharana   Pratap   Nagar,   Zone­II,   Bhopal   inviting
applications for granting whole­sale agency for soft drinks
as   manufactured   by   the   Company.   The   plaintiff­appellant
applied   for   the   grant   of   agency   in   his   favour.   The
plaintiff was one of the applicants seeking the agency at
Shahdol and he received a telephonic message from Jabalpur
from   Pleasure   Drinks   Pvt.   Ltd.   Naya   Bazar,   Jabalpur   for
coming   to   Jabalpur   and   depositing   a  sum  of   Rs.   10,000/­.
Consequent   upon   this,   the   plaintiff   came   to   Jabalpur   and
deposited the desired sum through Bank Draft which was sent
to the Head Office at Bhopal. 
The question involved is regarding the determination of the
jurisdiction.   Whether   the   Court   at   Shahdol   had   no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether the plaint
has   been   rightly   returned   for   presentation   before   the
appropriate Court? 
As no act was done by the Office of the defendant No. 1 at
Shahdol.   Apart   from   this,   if   that   office   was   in   any   way
connected with the controversy then it could have been made
a defendant in the suit. That office is not made defendant
in the suit, though the office at Jabalpur is one of the
defendants   in   the   suit   when   the   plaintiffs   contract
relating to the agency was to be given from the Head office
at Bhopal. 
The words "carries on business" have to be interpreted in
the   context   of   the   controversy   for   the   purpose   of
jurisdiction.   The   office   of   the   defendant­Company   though
situate   at   Shahdol   but   had   no   connection,   authority   or
power in the matter of inviting applications for granting
whole­sale agency or for getting money deposited. No other
case was cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and
no other argument was advanced. 
Murlidhar v/s Pleasure Drinks Pvt. Ltd., [1995] 2 MPWN 81/
[1995] 0 Supreme(MP) 144.

 52. Industrial   Dispute   Act,   1947   ­   Ss.   2   (k)   and   2­A   ­


dismissed   of   workman   ­   claim   for   reinstatement   and   back
wages ­ exclusive jurisdiction rests with the Labour Court
­ Civil suit not maintainable ­ Civil P.C., 1908 – S.9.
 52.1. Officer   Incharge   Agr.   Pro.   V/s   Dhaniram   Mrk.
Commissioner,   Shivpuri,   [1981]   2   MPWN   201/   [1981]   0
Supreme(MP) 431. 

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen