Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 10 -- Stay of second suit – Mandatory nature of Section 10 of CPC -- The use of negative expression in Section 10 of the Code i.e. “no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit” makes the provision mandatory and the court in which the subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit if the conditions laid down in Section 10 of the Code are satisfied.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), Section 4 – Rejection of plaint -- Benami property – Bar to recover benami property -- On a meaningful reading of the plaint, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the matter would be covered u/s 4 of the Benami Transactions Act -- Question whether the suit is barred u/s 4 of the Benami Transactions Act would be a matter of trial – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed.

(Para 1, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Order 7 Rule 11 – Second application for rejection of plaint – Res-judicata -- Earlier application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been filed by the petitioner which had been dismissed by the trial Court, said order has attained finality -- Now this second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the instant suit is barred as per provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC -- Present application filed for same relief by moulding the averments cannot be accepted.

(Para 11-13)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Suit for permanent injunction -- Admission – Photocopy of sale  deed – Evidential value -- Once the defendants had categorically admitted that plaintiff was the owner of the land on which she had raised the construction of a building, there was no question to doubt the title of the plaintiff in this regard simply for the reason that only the copy of the sale deed was produced and not the original sale deed.

(Para 13)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 – DNA test of witness – Permissibility of -- Suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction -- When the person is not a party to the lis and is deposing in the Court, as only witness, his/her DNA examination cannot be allowed -- Application for seeking DNA examination, dismissed.

(Para 7, 11, 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 39 Rule 1, 2 & 3 – Temporary injunction – Notice to opposite party – Requirement of -- It is mandatory for the Court to direct notice of the application filed under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 to be given to the opposite party except where it appears to the Court that object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay -- Notice mandated under Rule 3 cannot be a mere formality -- It has to be reasonable notice and the opposite party is entitled to make itself response within reasonable period.

(Para 26)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 39 Rule 1, 2 & 3 – Interim mandatory injunction – Installation of electric connection as interim relief -- Ld. trial Court hastened to pass an interim order in mandatory form which in fact is peri-materia to the prayer as made in the main suit -- Impugned order does not record any reason as to what urgency was seen by the learned trial Court in passing the impugned order on the same day on which the application was filed -- Thus, there is serious non-compliance of Rule 3, Order 39 of the CPC and the manner in which learned trial Court has conducted itself definitely is not confirming to the basis principles of judicial procedure and propriety -- Impugned order set aside with direction to the parties to maintain status quo ante as on the date of passing of the impugned order with respect to the installation of electricity connection.

(Para 10, 26, 27)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Suit for compensation – Limitation – Rejection of plaint -- Exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are drastic ones and a duty is caste on the Court to determine as to whether the plaint, on a plain reading along with document annexed thereto, discloses a cause of action -- No other document is to be seen at this stage -- Question of limitation would be a mix question of law and fact, the same cannot be decided in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(d), Order 14 Rule 1 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Territorial jurisdiction – Rejection of plaint – Framing of additional issue of territorial jurisdiction – Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC read with Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for rejection of the claim petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction dismissed -- Once on an application filed by the petitioner a categoric finding was returned that the Tribunal at Chandigarh had jurisdiction, the petitioner by insisting on framing of an additional issue qua jurisdiction cannot be permitted to get the question of jurisdiction reopened since the same already stood concluded.

(Para 2, 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Suit for specific performance – Interim relief -- Status quo -- Plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract against defendant No.1 -- Defendant No.1 had sold parts of suit land to defendants No.2 and 3/ during pendency of the suit proceedings -- Defendant No.1 had admitted the execution of the agreement in favour of plaintiff, but his case was that sale deed can be executed only after the partition of the suit land -- Balance of convenience and prima facie case existed in plaintiff’s favour -- To preserve the suit property and to avoid multiplicity of litigations, the order for maintaining status quo qua possession, alienation or creating further third-party interest in the suit land till the disposal of the suit was just and proper.

(Para 4)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Power to allow an amendment is wide and may be appropriately exercised, at any stage, in the interest of justice -- All amendments are to be allowed, which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side and that, it is essential, to enable the Court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision.

(Para 1, 12)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Delay in applying for amendment, alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer.

(Para 1, 12)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Order 1 Rule 10 – Amendment of plaint – Plaintiffs intend to add on the parties -- In the plaint the description of the land not  mentioned --  Through proposed amendment, plaintiff want to make the mention of Khasra Number to make an addition of the parties to the suit – Held, addition of the parties cannot be allowed by way of amendment of the plaint -- For this, the plaintiffs are required to file an appropriate application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC -- Introduction of the Khasra number, at this stage, will change the basis of the suit – Application dismissed by Trial Court – Revision against that order dismissed.

(Para 13-16)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9, 17, 36 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 2A -- Implementation of injunction order – Constitution of Arbitration Tribunal -- Petitioners seek an implementation of an order already passed by the Court when the Arbitral Tribunal had not yet been constituted – Commercial Court never lost jurisdiction to implement its own order by virtue of the powers conferred on it under Section 9(1)(ii)(e) -- Measures under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC for contempt of its orders, penal measures can be taken even after constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.

(Para 25-29)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 2A – Violation of order of Court – Order XXXIX Rule 2A is not the only remedy for violation of an injunction order -- Implementation of an injunction order, if necessary even by reversal of the acts taken in violation of the same, can be sought from the same court which granted the injunction in the first place.

(Para 30)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 10, Order 16 Rule 12 -- Closing of evidence -- Trial Court issued bailable warrants against some witnesses but did not take other coercive measure like issuance of non-bailable warrant, or attachment of property, or writing to the senior administrative officer to instruct the concerned witnesses to appear, so as to bring the case to its logical end by completing the proposed evidence of the parties – Held, trial Court completely faulted in its approach while closing the evidence of petitioner, causing great prejudice to him – Ld. trial Court directed to adopt all the measures as mandated under the provisions of Order 16 CPC and other provisions of the CPC – Revision allowed.

(Para 10-17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 12 – Annulment of marriage – Transfer of case – Kolkata to Jharkhand – Petitioner-wife has filed a petition for maintenance etc., the respondent-husband has filed the subject suit u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for annulment of the marriage -- Grounds taken that wife is staying with her parents at Dhanbad, Jharkhand; she has no source of livelihood; she has apprehension of physical violence and mental torture in the event of visiting Alipore etc. – Case ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 35B – Cost -- Argument that once the costs are imposed u/s 35B CPC it would be a condition precedent for further prosecution of the case – Held, costs if not paid can be included in the decree.

(Para 6)

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Investment in partnership firm – Consumer complaint – Maintainability of -- Investment made by the complainant was for deriving benefit by getting an interest @ 18% per annum, therefore, it would be an investment for profit/gain -- It was a commercial transaction and therefore also would be outside the purview of the 1986 Act -- Commercial disputes cannot be decided in summary proceeding under the 1986 Act but the appropriate remedy for recovery of the said amount, if any, admissible to the complainant-respondent No.1, would be before the Civil Court -- Complaint was thus not maintainable.

(Para 7)

B. Partnership firm – Death of partner – Liability of Legal heirs -- Legal heirs of a deceased partner do not become liable for any liability of the firm upon the death of the partner.

(Para 8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 17 – Service of summon -- When defendant refuses to accept the service or cannot be found, serving officer shall affix copy of summon on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides and carries on business or personally works for gain and shall then return the original to the court from which it was issued, with the report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so and the name and address of the person by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed -- Aforesaid compliance has not been made, so the trial Court was right in observing that it was not a proper service in the eyes of law.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 9, 21 – Service of summons – Registered post -- Respondents were residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the suit was instituted -- Service sought to be effected upon them by way of registered post acknowledgment due, directly by the Court where the suit was instituted, cannot be deemed to be proper service.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 17 – Order 6 Rule 2(i) – Evidence -- Pleading -- Evidence is not required to be incorporated or made part of the pleadings – Plaintiffs have filed suit for possession by way of redemption of mortgage -- They claimed to have stepped into the shoe of mortgager by virtue of a sale deed -- They want to prove that their vendor had possessed title -- Hence, the evidence sought to be led is not beyond pleadings.

(Para 12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 92 – Deficiency in deposit of decreetal amount -- Clerical or arithmetical mistake – Bar of 60 days – Applicability of – No bar created for 60 days in cases where the deficiency is due to clerical or arithmetical mistake -- The court has been given enabling power to extend the time -- Second part of sub-rule (2) does not provide that the outer limit for deposit is 60 days.

(Para 12-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 – Ex-parte decree – Setting aside of -- Suit transferred from the courts at Gurugram to the courts at Pataudi -- For one date, two summons were issued to the counsel, the report on both the summons was different -- Summons sent for service on the respondent, Process Server visited his house it was disclosed by the respondent’s wife that her husband is serving in Delhi Police, however, no attempt was made by the plaintiff to serve the respondent at his office address -- Court has only granted an opportunity to respondent to contest the case – Revision dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of decree – Conditional order of arrest -- Passing of order of conditional warrant of arrest without giving notice to the JD is in violation of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 37 CPC -- Court is bound to issue notice to the JD calling upon him to appear in the Court for showing cause against his detention in civil prison.

(Para 8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 152, 153 -- Correction in prayer after decree -- Both the parties were aware of the fact that the suit has been filed with respect to two different Khasra numbers, namely, Rectangle No.3, Khasra No.11(7-12) and Rectangle No.3, Khasra No.12(8-0) as specified in para 1 of the plaint -- Defendant No. 1 while filing the counter-claim also referred to the land comprising Rectangle No. 3, Khasra No. 12(8-0) – Trial Court in issue No. 7 has also referred to land comprised in Khasra No.3//11/7-12, and Khasra No.3//12/8-0, total measuring 15 kanals and 12 marlas -- Parties were conscious of the fact that the dispute is with respect to 15 kanals and 12 marlas land, which also includes land comprising Rectangle No.3, Khasra No.12(8-0) – Held, in the prayer clause inadvertently the land comprised in Rectangle No.3, Khasra No.12 (8-0) was omitted – Amendment allowed.

(Para 4-12)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 153 -- Correction in prayer after decree -- Section 153 of the CPC enables the Court to exercise its general power to amend at any point in time but for such application, there is only one pre-condition that such amendment should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question or issues raised by the parties to the dispute.

(Para 11)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Maintainability of revision -- No revision would be maintainable against an order dismissing an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner -- It is trite that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Demarcation of land -- Prima facie there does not appear to be any dispute regarding demarcation of the land inasmuch as the suit simpliciter is for possession and mandatory injunction -- It is for the plaintiff-petitioner to prove her case and she cannot take the aid of the Court agency for creating evidence for her – Application for appointment of Local Commissioner dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Ad-valorem court fee – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration challenging sale deed -- Plaintiff-petitioner is the executant of the registered sale deed -- Merely because the plaintiff-petitioner is not seeking possession would not entitle him from escaping from the rigors of affixing ad valorem court fee – Order directing plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee, upheld.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction against co-sharer -- Plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners in possession over land and nobody has been shown to be in the exclusive possession over the suit land -- It is trite law that the no injunction is to be granted against the other co-sharer.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction against co-sharer -- Co-sharer cannot be restrained from raising construction over the joint land except when co-sharer results in ousting of other co-sharer or is detrimental to the rights of other co-sharers -- Possession of one co-sharer is possession of all in the eyes of law -- So, even if the respondents raise construction over some portion, it will be subject to partition and respondents cannot claim any preferential right over a particular chunk of land due to raising of construction over it.

(Para 10)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 64, 65 -- Suit for possession – Limitation of 12 years -- Adverse possession -- Defendant/ appellant has not set up the plea that his possession was adverse -- In the earlier case, defendant took the plea that suit property was given by his father in the family settlement, which, he failed to prove -- Possession of defendant is permissive possession and suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation -- An owner of the property cannot be deprived to get possession of the property.

(Para 19)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27, Section 96 – Additional evidence in appeal -- It is incumbent upon learned Appellate Court to consider the application for additional evidence along with the hearing of the appeal on merits -- Addl. District Judge decided the application without deciding the appeal -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 12-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 42 Rule 5 -- First Appeal – Stay application – Non-decisioning upon – Warrant of possession by Executing Court -- Executing Court directed to suspend the order of issuance of warrant of possession and postpone it for another fifteen days – Ld. Appellate Court directed to decide the stay applications on the date already fixed, or any other date convenient to the Court but not beyond fifteen days thereafter.

(Para 10)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Suit for declaration qua the suit property to be coparcenary property of Joint Hindu Family of the parties and also challenged to the transfer deed -- Relief of permanent injunction also sought – Transfer deed was not executed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs and possession was not sought -- No ad valorem Court fee, is required to be filed.

(Para 2, 12, 13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Additional evidence in appeal -- First Appellate Court dismissed the application on the ground that these documents were already in the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore, the same cannot be permitted to be led in evidence -- Documents are relevant and crucial to the decision of the case -- Rules or procedures are handmaids of justice -- Even if the documents were in the knowledge of the petitioner, the same could be allowed, subject to payment of some cost in order to advance the cause of justice -- Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 1-10)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(i) – Advalorem court fee -- Suit for damages of specific amount – Court fee is payable according to the amount claimed.

(Para 12)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Transfer of divorce petition – Jharkhand to Bihar – Petitioner employed at Bengaluru -- Stated that it would be difficult for her to defend the subject-case at Ranchi, Jharkhand as she has no family support either at Bengaluru or at Ranchi -- It is specifically submitted that most of the time, she is working from Katihar, where her parental home is situated -- It would be expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the subject-case as asked for by the petitioner -- Transfer Petition allowed.

(Para 3-7)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22 – Interpretation of Section 22 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 --  Suit for specific relief – Alternative relief -- It enshrines the over-riding effect of this section over the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – It enabled any person suing for specific performance of a contract to also seek additional relief of possession, partition and any other relief to which he may be entitled to including refund of earnest money or deposit, paid or made by him – Such alternative relief does not in any way adversely impact the primary relief i.e. specific performance of the agreement to sell -- Alternative relief is granted by the Court only in a case where the Court does not find it appropriate to grant the primary relief -- However, the alternative relief does not substitute the primary relief -- Language of Section 22 brings forth the clear intention of the legislature to enable the plaintiff to seek additional as well as alternative relief in the same suit.

(Para 15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 -- Regular Second appeal – Substantial question of law -- Concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below -- High Court without undertaking any exercise, by a cryptic order allowed the appeal holding that there is no need for framing substantial question of law in view of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 -- By merely giving a reason that the allegations made in the pleadings are bald and the evidence adduced is not sufficient, the appeal was allowed – It can be stated that there is no need for framing substantial question of law, the issues will have to be considered in their right perspective, including the legal contentions -- Until and unless the findings of facts were found to be perverse, the High Court cannot set aside the same and, that too, without giving adequate reasoning.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal – Interference in finding on facts – Sub-clause No.(c) of Section 41 (1) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, enables the High Court for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, to reappreciate the evidence, if the decision is suffering from substantial error or defect resulting in defect in the decision of the case -- Consequently, it is permissible for the Court while deciding second appeal to re-appreciate the evidence if the decisions of the Courts suffer from perversity --  However, it is not permissible to interfere if two views are possible -- Interference in the second appeal has to be restricted to rare and exceptional cases where the court finds that the findings of fact stand vitiated by erroneous approach based on miss application of evidence or reliance on inadmissible evidence.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 73 – Agreement to sell – Handwriting expert -- It is well settled that invariably the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert gives a favourable opinion to the person who has engaged him – U/s 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Presiding Judge is not debarred from carefully comparing the signatures and finger prints on various documents -- Adverse inference could not be drawn against the defendants for failure to examine Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert.

(Para 27(17))

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32, 33 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was neither relevant nor admissible in evidence as the plaintiff failed to fulfill the requirements of Section 32 and 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(Para 27(18))

D. Agreement to sell -- Examination of the regular scribe was important.

(Para 27(21))

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 – First Appeal -- First Appellate Court is a court of fact and law both.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 41 Rule 23A -- First Appeal – Remand of case -- Enabling power to remand the case back to the lower court is required to be exercised in rate and exceptional cases -- Before passing the order of remand back to the lower court in a civil case, the First Appellate Court is required to fulfill twin conditions, namely, the judgment passed by the trial court is set aside and the re-trial of the case is considered necessary -- Unless these two mandatory conditions are fulfilled, it is not appropriate for the appellate court to remand the case back to the trial court.

(Para 8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 15 Rule 5 – Non-payment of due rent -- Defence struck off -- Obligation upon the lessee to make payment of the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest on the first date of hearing, failing which the court has the power to strike off the defence of the defendant -- An obligation is cast upon him to pay throughout the continuation of the suit such monthly amount which is due within a week from the date of its accrual, failing which the Court has got the power to strike off the defence.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 15 Rule 5 – Non-payment of due rent -- Defence struck off -- Petitioner/ defendant has failed to deposit the monthly rent due, during pendency of the suit, the learned Trial Court is perfectly justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner/defendant – Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 7,  8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Suit/ Plea by plaintiff for adverse possession – Maintainability of -- High Court allowed the second appeal only on the ground that a plea of the adverse possession cannot be taken by the plaintiff -- Review application also dismissed – Settled law is that a plaintiff can seek declaration of title by adverse possession -- Judgment and order of the High Court in RSA and Review Application set aside – Appeals allowed.

(Para 4-6)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13, 17, 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- SARFAESI  proceedings – Rejection of plaint – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Temporary injunction -- An injunction can be granted only after applying three well known tests:- i. Prima facie case; ii. Balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs; and iii. Irreparable loss and injury, which the party is likely to suffer -- Without applying these three tests, the Courts are not expected to grant injunction, particularly against financial creditors, who are already facing lot of difficulties in recovery of the defaulted amount -- Plaint rejected while relegating the plaintiffs to the remedy u/s 17 of the 2002 Act before Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(Para 13)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 13-B -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Divorce – Transfer petition -- Settlement arrived between parties – Pending cases quashed -- Joint Application filed by the parties under Article 142 of the Constitution -- Terms of the settlement are lawful and there is no legal impediment in accepting the same -- Consequently, invoking jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the marriage between the parties dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent -- Transfer Petition disposed of.

(Para 8-16)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 4 -- Pronote – Attesting witness not examined – Recovery suit decreed by Trial court -- One of the marginal witnesses died, whereas the second was won over by the appellant -- In order to prove the pronote and the receipt, the plaintiff himself has stepped into the witness box and examined the Scribe who has proved the entry of the pronote in his note book which is also signed by the appellant -- Moreover, while filing the written statement, the defendant admits that he was called in the Tehsil Complex and on request of the plaintiff, he appended his signatures on certain documents -- No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below, consequently, appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Section 149 -- Rejection of plaint – Late deposit of court fee -- Plaintiff furnished/ filed the Court-fee, as asserted/ alleged by the defendant in his application to be deficit -- Even trial Court had the occasion to pass any order for making the alleged deficiency good and to grant him the time for doing so – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Revision not maintainable.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 14 Rule 5 -- Suit for specific performance and possession – Agreement alleged to be forged and fabricated document -- Issue “Whether the agreement to sell dated 14.02.2014 and its endorsement dated 18.02.2014 are forged and fabricated and result of fraud? OPD”, onus to prove was on the defendants – To prove her case, the petitioner moved an application for permission to inspect the file and Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert be allowed to take photographs of the signatures and thumb impressions -- Ld. ACJ rejected the application – Held, this would amount to rejecting the petitioner to prove his case – Impugned order set aside, application allowed.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of written statement -- Written statement filed on May 2021 -- When the matter was fixed for rebuttal evidence, on 23.10.2023 the application was filed for amendment of the written statement -- Only ground for amendment is that there was no denial to the averments made in para No.4(e), (f) and (g) and infact there was no reply to the said paras – Held, amendment now sought at a belated stage cannot be permitted to fill lacuna -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Order 2 Rule 2 -- Amendment of suit – Bar of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC -- No merit in the contention that the amendment application was rightly rejected by applying the bar contained under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code, which cannot be applied to an amendment which is sought on an existing Suit -- Amendment sought before commencement of the trial, the Court is required to be liberal in its approach – Ld. Trial Court directed to take on record the amended plaint for further proceedings.

(Para 14-17)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Evidence -- Petitioner/ plaintiff has to stand on his own legs by adducing cogent, independent and reliable evidence and he could not invoke the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to ask the Court concerned to collect, garner or generate evidence for him.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Evidence -- Plea of the petitioner/ plaintiff  is that he is the owner of the suit property but the same is in illegal possession of the respondents who are having no right, title or interest in the said property -- Possession of the site in dispute is a matter to be decided by the Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by the parties -- The exercise cannot be relegated to the Court Commissioner to find out as to who is in possession and who has encroached the property in question and to what extent.

(Para 11-13)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 – Regular Second Appeal – Substantial question of law -- In the States of Punjab and Haryana, it is the provisions of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 would be applicable and, therefore, Section 100 CPC would not hold the field -- There would be no requirement of framing substantial questions of law in second appeal.

(Para 15)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 – Ancestral property – Once the property had been acquired by way of succession, it would lose its ancestral character.

(Para 16)

A. Possession of property -- For possession of property, a person is not required to stay in such property for 24x7 -- A person residing at one place, but having right to own and possess the property at another place, is not only in deemed or constructive possession but in actual possession of such property -- For absence of a person for a long time, he cannot be deprived from his property by treating him to be dispossessed from his property owned and possessed by him.

(Para 10)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Bar of Section 34 of SRA – Rejection of plaint -- Suit claiming plaintiffs as owners in possession of the suit property -- Suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs is not a suit merely for declaration, but consequential relief, as considered necessary and fit, including suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and damages, has also been sought --  Therefore, it is wrong to allege that it is a suit for mere declaration without consequential relief – Such issue is to be decided at the time of conclusion of trial -- Provisions of proviso to Section 34 of the Act are not attracted -- Plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC.

(Para 11-14)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 14, 21, Order 18 Rule 13A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 120, 137, 138, 139, 154, 155 – Parties to suit – Witnesses -- Function performed by either a witness or a party to a suit when in the witness box is the same -- Examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination are all facets of a trial which can be availed by a party or the adversary, for both the party to a suit as a witness and also for other witnesses called by the party -- Held, there is no difference between a party to a suit as a witness and a witness simpliciter.

(Para 13-16, 32)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 14(4), Order 8 Rule 1-A(4)(a), Order 13 Rule 1(3) – Withholding of documents -- Production of documents for both a party to the suit and a witness as the case may be, at the stage of cross-examination, is permissible within law.

(Para 17-32)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 -- Arguments without pleadings -- It is settled law that what is not pleaded cannot be argued, as for the purposes of adjudication, it is necessary for the other party to know the contours of the case it is required to meet -- It is equally well settled that the requirement of having to plead a particular argument does not include exhaustively doing so.

(Para 28)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 2 – Admission and denial -- Order 12 of CPC deals with admission and denial -- As per Rule 2 of Order 12 of CPC, either party may call upon the other party to admit any document and in case of refusal or neglect to admit, the costs of proving any such document shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever the result of the suit may be.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint/ cause of action -- Plaintiff, by way of amendment, wants to replace the heading of the plaint to: suit for declaration, mandatory & permanent injunction and possession by way of specific performance of the contract -- Plaintiff/ petitioner wants to substitute new cause of action with the previous one – Entire nature of the suit would change including cause of action if amendment is allowed as the plaintiff/ petitioner wants to substitute the suit with a new suit – Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for amendment -- No reason to interfere – Revision dismissed.

(Para 14-16)