Compilation of Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and High Courts, wherein it is held that "Suit not is maintainable". This document will be helpful for those who are looking for a complilation of judgments whrein it is held that "Suit not is maintainable" on the one ground or the other.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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/

17. [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

18. 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]

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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/

25. [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.

26. 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

27. 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.