Rejection plaint-civil procedure code

The institution of a suit starts with filing of plaint. Plaint is the pleading of the plaintiff. Since it is the starting point of the suit, the law requires it to be perfect. Certain guidelines are required to be met with while filing a plaint. The smooth trial of the case depends half of its part on the plaint. Thus if the requirements are not with the plaint will necessarily be rejected. Rejection of plaint is stated in order 7 rule 11 of the cpc. Six circumstances are provided in the code where the plaint will be rejected. They are explained as follows: Every plaint, according to section 26 shall be instituted in the prescribed manner. The manner in which it is to be instituted in dealt with under order 7 rule 1. Clause 'e' says that the plaint shall contain the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose. The 'cause of action' is the crux of the suit which explains why the suit is instituted and it enables the court to verify the limitation period also. Hence it is a necessary part in the plaint. Order 7 rule 11clause 'a' says that the plaint shall be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action. Every court has its own pecuniary jurisdiction according to which it tries suits. The division is provided in the cpc in accordance with sound principles. Hence it is necessary to provide in the plaint the correct valuation. Order 7 rule 1(i) provides the same. If the valuation shown is not correct the law gives the plaintiff time to correct the valuation. Even then if the plaintiff fails to correct the same, the plaint will be rejected under order 7 rule 11(b) of the code. Another case arises when the plaint claim is correctly valued but no sufficient stamp paper is produced. The plaintiff is required to file requisite court -fee along with the plaint. However law grants some time to pay the same and on failing the plaint will be rejected under order 7 rule 11(c) of cpc. Section 9 of the cpc says that the courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Thus it is clear that no suit shall be entertained if barred by any law or statute in force. If there is such bar, the plaint will be rejected under order 7 rule 11(d) of cpc. Filing of duplicate plaint in court along with plaint was made mandatory by the amendment in 199 which came into effect from 2002. If the duplicate plaint is not filed, the plaint can be rejected under order 7 rule 11(e). Order 7 rule 9 provides that the plaintiff shall present su ch copies of plaint as there are defendants in the suit and also pay the requisite process fee in the court. If the plaintiff

fails the plaint will be rejected under order 7 rule 11(f) of the code. This was the result of amendment in 2002.

Consequence and remedy

As per section 2(2) of the code under definition of decree it is said that decree shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint. Hence appeal and review can be filed against an order of rejection of plaint. Inherent powers of court cannot be invoked nor the provision under order 9 rule 9 inorder to restore the suit.

Reference&revision-distinguish-between
Chapter 30 of the code of criminal procedure says about reference and revision. Section 395 of the code describes the provision of refere nce.where any court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any law and the answer is necessary for the disposal of the case, and it has an opinion that the said law is invalid but not so declared, then reference can be made to high court. Section 397 to 404 details the provision of revision. It is exercised to examine the correctness of an order passed. The power vests in sessions court and high court. The following are the main distinctive features of reference and revision: 1. The code provides power to the court to make reference by its own motion. In the case of revision, the party can also apply. 2. The power of reference is invoked so as to make a determination on a question by the higher court regarding a legal questions based on an inoperative law. The power of revision is to satisfy itself that a sentence or order passed by an inferior criminal court is correct, legal, proper etc. 3. Reference lies to the high court while revision lies to sessions court and high court. 4. Reference lies in pending cases while revisional jurisdiction has been specifically excluded in relation to interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding as per sub-section 3 of section 397.

Distinction-indemnity-guarantee-indiancontractact
There are distinguishing differences between indemnity and guarantee in the indian contract act. Section 124 of the indian contract act, 1872 defines the "contract of indemnity". It is a contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the contract of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person. 'A' contracts to indemnify b against the consequences of any proceedings which c may take against b in respect of a certain sum of 20000 rupees. This is a contract of indemnity. A contract of guarantee is defined in section 126 of the act. It is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of his default. The person who gives the guarantee is called the surety; the person in respect of whose default the guarantee is given is called the principal debtor and the person to whom the guarantee is given is called the creditor. In contract of indemnity there are only two parties viz the i ndemnifier or promisor and the indemnity holder or promisee. In contract of guarantee there are three parties viz the creditor, principal debtor and surety. In indemnity, there is primary and independent liability. In guarantee the surety has collateral liability. There is no existing debt generally in the case of contract of indemnity where there is existing debt in the case of guarantee. There are two contracts in a contract of indemnity where there are three contracts in the case of guarantee. In indemnity the promisor is discharged by payment. In guarantee the surety is discharged by payment made by principal debtor. Indemnifier may have some interest in the transaction where the surety will not have any connection with the transaction.

Distinguish admission confession-iea

Confession is the admission of guilt or its inferences by an accused in custody. There are two types of confession viz. Judicial and extra -judicial. Some provisions relating to confessions are contained in sections 24 to 29 of the indian evidence act. Admission is defined under section 17 of the indian evidence act. It is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and un der the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned. Section 18 onwards different circumstances of admissions are provided under the indian evidence act. Confession is generally made by the accused person. Admission is made by other persons. Confession statement is culpatory while admission is exculpatory. Admitted facts need not be proved. Confession is proved only for purposes mentioned in the act like discovery. Confession is generally used in criminal cases while admission is used in civil cases. Confession can be retracted while admission cannot be retracted.

34&149-common intention and object

Section 34 of the indian penal code refers to common intention. It says that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Common object is dealt within section 149 of ipc. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. Common intention requires that the number of persons should be more than one. At least 5 persons are necessary for common object.[sec.141] Common intention does not create a specific and substantive offence. It states a rule of law which is read with other subs tantive offences. No punishments can be solely based on this sections. Common object on the other hand creates a specific and substantive offence. Common intention may be of any form where common object must be one of the five objects specified in section 141 of IPC. In common intention prior meeting of minds is necessary. But it is not a requirement under common object. The only requirement is that there must be 5 or more persons forming an unlawful assembly. Substantive offence under s.141 of the ipc, of unlawful assembly, is also involved in s.149. But s.34 contains only a rule of law. So while specific charge is necessary for s.149 that is not necessary in the case of s.34. Decisions: Mohanan v. State of kerala 2000 (2) klt 562 Hon ble the chief justice mr. Justice arijit pasayat & hon ble mr. Justice k.s. Radhakrishnan Relied on air 1956 sc 731 common object is different from a common intention as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. The common object of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature

of the assembly, the arms carried by the members and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful. Under the explanation to s. 141, an assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or even for sometime thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful. In other words, it can develop during the course of incident at the spot instantly. (para. 12)