| Register
Home | Discussion Forum | Communities | Professional Search | Law Dictionary | Bare Acts | Law Schools | State Bare Acts | Free Judgement Search | Law quotes
Articles  |    Humor    |    Law Digest
Bare acts search

  Bookmark and Share
Bare acts > Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 > Order 9 Rule 9


9. Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit.- (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action, But he may apply for an Order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for his non appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the court shall make an Order setting aside c the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.

(2) No Order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.


Andhra Pradesh.- Same as that of Madras.

Assam and Nagaland.- Same as that of Calcutta.

Bombay.- Add the following as sub-rule (3):

“(3) The provision of Section 5, Limitation Act, 1980 shall apply to applications under this rule.” (21.12.1927).

Calcutta, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.- Insert sub-rule (2) as follows:

(A) Renumber sub-rule (2), as sub rule (3), and add as sub-rule (2):

“(2) The plaintiff shall for service on OP. present along with his application under this rule either -

(i) as many copies thereof on plain paper as there are OP., or

(ii) if the Court by reason of the length of the application or the number of OP. or for any other sufficient reason grants permission in this behalf, a like number of concise statements.”

(B) In the re-numbered sub-rule (3) after the words “notice of the application” add “with a copy thereof (or concise statement as the case may be)”.

Delhi and Himachal Pradesh.- Same as in Punjab.

Same as that of Bombay (17.8.1961).

Kerala.- Same as that in Madras (9.6.1959).

Madras.- Same as that of Bombay (29.3.1949).

Orissa.- Delete sub-rule (3) as added by Orissa Amendment (14.5.1984).

Punjab and Haryana.- Add the following proviso to sub-rule (1):

‘Provided that the plaintiff shall not be precluded from bringing another suit for t i although a former suit may have been dismissed for default.” (Chief Court: 12.5.1909).

Add as sub-rule (3) :—

“(3) The provisions of Section 5 Limitation Act shall apply to applications under sub-rule (1).” 14.2.1956.





A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z


Bookmark and Share

Quick Links          
Family Laws Insurance Laws Environmental law Tax Law FDI  
Company Law Telecommunication Law Labour Laws Central Rules RBI  
Business & Commercial Laws Consumer laws Corporate laws Criminal laws SEBI  
Intellectual Property law Media & Press laws Pharma & Medical laws Property law FEMA  
Debt Recovery Laws Amendments Professional law Banking Laws Legal Links  
  Partner Site India No 1 Business Directory and Classified Portal Your Online Library




Privacy PolicyDisclaimer | Link partners

Copyright @2010