Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction – Observation therein – Effect of -- It is settled law that the observations made in the order while rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC or the appeal therefrom are only for the purpose of deciding the said application -- Suit is to be decided by the trial Court independent of the said observations in accordance with the evidence on record.

(Para 3)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151 -- Additional evidence – Rebuttal evidence -- Plaintiff-petitioner is setting up entirely a new case by way of leading additional evidence qua which there are no pleadings -- Jamabandi, which is now sought to be produced to show the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner, was to be produced in the affirmative as the onus was upon plaintiff -- Having not led the evidence in the affirmative, the plaintiff-petitioner cannot now be permitted to fill in the lacuna in the case by leading the said evidence as additional evidence --  Question of permitting the judgment to be produced as additional evidence qua which there are no pleadings would not arise.

-- Application itself is totally bereft as to why the said evidence was not led earlier.

-- There is not even a whisper that the plaintiff-petitioner was not aware of this evidence at the time of leading his evidence in the affirmative.

Application for additional evidence dismissed by Trial court – No fault, revision dismissed.

(Para 1, 4, 7-9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3, Order 43 Rule 1A, Section 96(3) – Compromise decree – Challenge to – Bar to appeal -- Proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 is not optional; it is the exclusive first port of call for any party on record who denies the compromise -- Order XLIII Rule 1-A does not create a new right of appeal; it merely enables an appellant, already before the Appellate Court, to attack the decree on the ground that the compromise should not have been recorded -- When the fact of compromise is not disputed, the bar in Section 96(3) is absolute.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3, Order 43 Rule 1A, Section 96(3) – Compromise decree – Bar to appeal -- Compromise terms signed by Counsels -- Challenge to -- Both decrees rest on written compromise terms signed by counsel who held unquestioned vakalatnamas -- Signature of duly authorised counsel is the signature of the party -- Decrees are therefore consent decrees within the meaning of Section 96(3) -- Appellant never invoked the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3; instead, she lodged Appeals from Orders on the footing of the deleted Order XLIII Rule 1(m) -- Appellant’s submission that allegations of fraud transform a consent decree into an ordinary decree cannot be accepted -- Fraud, want of authority or other vitiating elements are precisely the matters that the proviso directs the Trial Court to examine -- Unless and until that route is pursued, the statutory bar in Section 96(3) of the CPC remains operative.

(Para 12, 13)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3, Order 43, Rule 1A, Section 96(3) – Compromise decree – Challenge to – Maintainability of Appeal – The CPC, after the 1976 amendment, works in two distinct ways -- If a person was already a party to the suit, and denies that any lawful compromise ever took place, the CPC requires that person to go back to the Trial Court under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 and ask that Court to decide whether the compromise is valid -- On the other hand, someone who was not a party to the suit, but whose rights are hurt by a consent decree, may approach the Appellate Court in a First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, but only after obtaining leave -- Order XLIII Rule 1-A does not create an independent appeal at all.

(Para 15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 23A, 25, 27 – Additional evidence – Additional Issue – Remitting back of appeal – Permissibility of -- First Appellate Court is a Court of fact and law both and the application for additional evidence can be allowed -- First Appellate Court erred in remitting the matter back to the trial Court after framing additional issue and permitting the plaintiff to lead additional evidence -- First Appellate Court has neither set aside the judgment of the trial Court on merits nor it has formed an opinion that re-trial of the case is necessary -- Hence, the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court to the limited extent of remitting the matter back to the lower Court set aside and the first appeal is restored to its original number -- Court will proceed in accordance with Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC.

(Para 7-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100, 103 -- Regular Second Appeal – Scope of interference -- When the First Appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has considered the entire evidence and rendered a finding, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence just because another view is possible, when the view taken by the First Appellate Court is plausible and does not suffer from vice in law -- When the determination of the High Court is only by way of re-appreciation of the existing evidence, without there being any legal question to be answered, it would be axiomatic that not even a question of law is involved, much less a substantial one.

(Para 12.1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100, 103 – First Appeal -- Regular Second Appeal – Scope of interference -- First Appellate Court analyzed the entire oral evidence adduced by both parties, as well as the documentary evidence relied upon by either side, and dismissed the suit -- Authority to re-consider the evidence is available only to the First Appellate Court under Section 96 and not to the High Court in exercise of its authority under Section 100, unless the case falls under the exceptional circumstances provided under Section 103.

(Para 12.2)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Joint Family property – Burdon of proof -- It is a settled principle of law that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family -- The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property -- If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, then there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available -- That apart, while considering the term ‘nucleus’ it should always be borne in mind that such nucleus has to be established as a matter of fact and the existence of such nucleus cannot normally be presumed or assumed on probabilities.

(Para 13)

D. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 – Ancestral property -- For a property to be considered as an ancestral property, it has to be inherited from any of the paternal ancestors up to three generations.

(Para 14)

E. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Partition of ancestral property – Self-acquired property -- As per Hindu law, after partition, each party gets a separate and distinct share and this share becomes their self-acquired property and they have absolute rights over it and they can sell, transfer, or bequeath it as they wish -- After the death of the father, the joint family became unmanageable due to difference of opinion among the members and therefore, they decided that it was not good to stay together and partitioned the lands allotted to them -- Thus, the intention of the parties and the recitals in the partition deed establish that the parties wanted to go their separate ways and did not want the property to remain as joint family property -- Properties bequeathed through partition, become the self-acquired properties of the respective sharers -- The mere existence of sons and daughters in a joint Hindu family does not make the father's separate or self-acquired property as joint family property.

(Para 17-19)

F. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Joint Hindu Family property – Income and Sale consideration -- Expenses incurred for maintenance, marriage and education of children -- When the income derived from the joint family property or when a joint family property is sold and the sale consideration is utilised for maintenance and education within the joint family, the same are to be treated as out of necessity as it is the duty of every Kartha to do so -- Hence, it is sufficient to satisfy the legal necessity if the Kartha had sold the property and used the funds for upbringing the children -- That apart, under the customary practices and tradition, it is the father who performs the marriage of his children and therefore, the expenses incurred for that purposes are also to be treated as expenses out of necessity.

(Para 19.1)

G. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Separate/ self-acquired of a member of joint Hindu family – Abandonment of status – From the mere fact that other members of the family were allowed to use the property jointly with himself, or that the income of the separate property was utilized out of generosity to support persons whom the holder was either bound or not bound to support, or from the failure to maintain separate accounts, abandonment cannot be inferred, for an act of generosity or kindness, will not ordinarily be regarded as an admission of a legal obligation.

(Para 20)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6, Order 8 Rule 5 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 58 -- Judgment on admissions – Mandatory or discretionary -- Provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary and permissive -- They are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory -- If the court is of the opinion that it is not safe to pass a judgment on admissions, or that a case involves questions which cannot be appropriately dealt with and decided on the basis of admission, it may, in exercise of its discretion, refuse to pass a judgment and may insist upon clear proof of even admitted facts.

(Para 28-30)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6, Order 8 Rule 5 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 58 -- Judgment on admissions – Stage of – Right of -- Rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment where a claim is admitted and to pass a decree on such admitted claim -- This can be done at any stage -- Plaintiff may move for judgment upon admission by the defendant in his written statement at any stage of the suit although he has joined issue on the defence -- Defendant may apply for dismissal of the suit on the basis of admission by the plaintiff in rejoinder.

(Para 39)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6, Order 8 Rule 5 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 58 – Partial judgment/ decree on admissions – Since the object of sub-rule (1) is to enable the plaintiff to get judgment on admission of the defendant to the extent of such admission, he must get the benefit thereof immediately without waiting for the determination of “non-admitted claim” -- Sub-rule (2) makes it imperative for the court to draw up a decree in terms of judgment on admission which can be executed by the plaintiff -- In such cases, there may be two decrees; (i) in respect of admitted claim; and (ii) in respect of “non-admitted” or contested claim.

(Para 42)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6 – Judgment on admissions – A decree under Rule 6 may be either preliminary or final.

(Para 43)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Limitation -- Registered sale deed constitutes constructive notice to the world -- Partition took place way back in the year 1968 -- Suit is filed in the year 2023, i.e. after a period of 55 years -- Further, many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds in the year 1978 – It can be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds -- Plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years -- Trial Court rightly allowed the application of the defendants/appellants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred by limitation.

(Para 9-17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2, Order 23 Rule 1(3)(b) – Withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh -- Petitioner raised her grievance against execution of the gift deed  and consequent attestation of mutation, but no specific relief has been prayed to declare the gift deed illegal, null or void and not binding on the rights of petitioner -- Such omission entails consequences under order 2 rule 2 of the Code -- Petitioner cannot sue again in respect of the omitted portion of the claim -- Since, the plea which had been left from incorporation, could not be said to be alien to the subject matter or cause of action of the suit, even the requirements of order 23 rule 1(3) (b) were satisfied -- Suit is at very initial stage, issues have not been framed; therefore, no prejudice likely to be caused to the respondents --  Petitioner permitted to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh on the same cause of action.

(Para 11-19)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Regular Second Appeal – Condonation of delay -- State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation -- All parties, whether or not State under Article 12 of the Constitution, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude.

(Para 13)

A. CCS Pension Rules, 1972, Rule 56 – Regularization of daily wage employee – Pensionary  benefits -- Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and his services were regularized thereafter -- Petitioner shall be deemed to have retired on attaining the age of 60 years i.e. w.e.f. 12.07.2012 – A period of two years is to be added towards the qualifying service of petitioner to the period of 7 years 6 months and 12 days -- Petitioner rendered total eligible regular service of 9 years, 6 months and 12 days -- Petitioner has rendered more than 8 years of service though less than 10 years of service and for such reason his service is to be reckoned as 10 years, which makes him qualified for pensionary benefits.

(Para 11-17)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2—Constructive res-judicata -- Petitioner approached the Court in the year 2014 for grant of benefit of work charge/regularization -- His petition was not decided on merits and directions were issued to the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner -- It was on such consideration that the benefit of work charge and regularization was granted to the petitioner -- Once the petitioner got such benefit, he immediately made a claim for pensionary benefits in the year 2015 which was finally rejected by the respondents in the year 2019 -- Petition cannot be said to suffer from principle of constructive res judicata or Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC as the petitioner had sought the relief of pensionary benefits at the first available opportunity.

(Para 18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction -- Co-owner -- Electricity in name of defendant – Right of irrigation -- One of the cosharers of the tubewell cannot deprive the right of irrigation to the other co-sharer by unauthorisedly removing the common facility for irrigating the fields.

(Para 4)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Eviction petition -- Appointment of Local Commissioner -- No right vested in favour of a party to get the said commission issued and rather the same is an enabling provision that enables the Court to appoint a Commissioner if it is of the opinion that the same is required in a case.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 37, 38, 39, Order 21 -- Execution of decree – Time limit of 6 months -- All the High Courts directed to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions -- High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.

(Para 75)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c), 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Eviction of tenant – Execution of order/ decree -- ‘Landlord’ has been defined as a person, who is entitled to receive the rent -- It is not synonymous with the word ‘Owner’ -- If the tenants/ appellants have any dispute with landlord, then they have to establish their rights in the separate suit -- At this stage, only the Executing Court is required to deliver possession in favour of the decree holder.

(Para 3)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 2(b), 12 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 2(a) -- Contempt of Court -- Agreement to sell after Status quo order – Agreement to sell and acceptance of sale consideration despite the interim orders, held to be contempt of Court -- Respondent no. 1 to 4 held guilty of civil contempt, as defined under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Rule-2(a) of the Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- Unconditional apology tendered at the fag end of the proceedings, rejected – Fine of Rs.2,000/- on respondent no. 1 to 4 / Senior citizens each and costs of Rs.1,00,000/- as per Rule 21 of Contempt of Court (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984 imposed -- Agreement to sell held to be nonest and void ab initio, the same quashed and set aside.

(Para 17, 18, 28, 33, 34)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, 151, Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence in appeal -- Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC dismissed whereas the first appeal is pending -- Impugned order set aside and the First Appellate Court directed to consider the application for additional evidence afresh along with main appeal and at the time of deciding of the main appeal.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11 Rule 14 – Production of documents – Discretion of court -- Provision does not give an absolute right to a party to seek production of documents at any stage of the proceedings and the same is an enabling power with the Court.

(Para 4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 (7 of 1882), Section 2 -- Rejection of plaint -- Power of attorney – Conveyance already made -- Cancellation of attorney after 11 years -- Cause of action -- Power holder having exercised the authority conferred; to convey the properties in the name of the purchasers, the cancellation of the power of attorney will have no effect on the conveyances carried out under the valid power conferred -- Nor would it confer the person who executed the power of attorney any cause of action, by virtue of a cancellation of the power conferred by a subsequent document, to challenge the valid exercise of the power when it existed – Order of rejection of plaint passed by trial court affirmed.

(Para 8, 9)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C, 22E – Public Utility Services – Permanent Lok Adalat – Territorial Jurisdiction – Insurance policy was issued from Chandigarh Branch, whereas, the place of occurrence/ accident is in district Auraiya (Uttar Pradesh) – Application preferred by the petitioner before the PLA at Gurugram is a misconceived motion, on account of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority/Court of territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 – Cancellation of allotment -- Forfeiture of amount – Suit for declaration that cancellation was null and void -- HUDCO was in breach of several obligations as contemplated in the Allotment Letter, viz. failure to execute documents for securing approval under the ULCR Act and the IT Act; failure to execute the sub lease agreement in favour of the Appellant and; failure to secure the approval of the revised layout plan for the construction of the hotel -- It is a settled position of law that a commercial document ought not to be interpreted in a manner that arrives at a complete variance with what may originally have been the intention of the parties -- Respondent No. 1/HUDCO, was in breach of its reciprocal contractual obligations, thereby disentitling them from forfeiting the monies already paid by the Appellant towards the first instalment as enshrined in Clause 5 (iii) of the Allotment Letter – Appellant has blatantly engaged in forum shopping, and considering that their overall conduct does not in any manner reflect an approach aligning with the clean hands doctrine, they are not entitled to grant of any discretionary relief of interest in their favour -- Appellant held entitled to a refund of the principal amount, without any interest.

(Para 42-47, 60)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 34 – Interest -- It is trite law that u/s 34 of the CPC, the award of interest is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations.

(Para 49)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Show cause notice – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction -- Writ Court should not entertain any petition, seeking to challenge a show cause notice unless the Court is convinced that the same has been issued by an authority having no jurisdiction, or the same is tainted with mala fides.

(Para 16)

B. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 74 -- Breach of contractual obligations -- Punitive measures – Blacklisting of contractor -- A mere allegation of breach of contractual obligations without anything more, per se, does not invite any such punitive action.

(Para 34)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – Interim order – Power of -- Second appeal will be maintainable before the High Court, if the case involves a substantial question of law -- High Court, without formulating substantial questions of law, granted the interim relief by directing the parties to maintain status quo, till the next date of hearing – Held, High Court could not have passed the interim order without satisfying itself of the existence of a substantial question of law, as mandated u/s 100 CPC – Interim order passed by High Court set aside.

(Para 10.4, 11, 13)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 28 – Decree of Specific performance – Extension of time – Annulment of decree – Power of -- A suit for specific performance does not come to an end on passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains the control over the decree even after the decree has been passed -- Decree for specific performance has been described as a preliminary decree -- Power u/s 28 of the Act is discretionary and the court cannot ordinarily annul the decree once passed by it -- Court does not cease to have the power to extend the time even though the trial court had earlier directed in the decree that payment of balance price to be made by certain date and on failure the suit to stand dismissed.

(Para 25, 26)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Decree of appellate Court – Execution of -- Once the High Court as an appellate court in second appeal renders its judgment it is a decree of the second appellate court which becomes executable.

(Para 34)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 28  – Decree of Specific performance – Extension of time – Modification of decree -- When time for payment of money is extended, it does not mean a modification of the decree -- Trial court has power to extend the time, and the expression “such further period as the court may allow” would mean the court which had passed the decree, or, where the application u/s 28 of the Act of 1963, is filed.

(Para 44, 45)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 – Execution of decree – Breach of injunction -- Imprisonment of a judgment-debtor – Attachment of property -- Once it is proved that J.D. had wilfully and with impunity disobeyed an order of injunction, the court owes it to itself to make the judgment-debtor realise that it does not pay to defy a decree of a court -- Court’s power under Order 21, Rule 32 is no more than a procedural aid to the harried decree-holder -- But the court has to record a finding that the judgment-debtor wilfully disobeyed or failed to comply with the decree in spite of opportunity afforded to him -- Absence of such finding is a serious infirmity vitiating the order.

(Para 44, 45)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 – Execution of decree – Continuous breach of injunction – Res-judicata --  Each breach of injunction is independent and actionable in law making the judgment-debtor answerable -- Where there are successive breaches of decree, the judgment-debtor can be dealt with on every such breach and the doctrine of res judicata has no application.

(Para 46)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 – Execution of decree – Detention of Judgment debtor – Onus to prove of  willful disobedience -- Onus of placing materials before the executing Court for enabling it to record a finding that the person against whom the order of detention is sought, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree for injunction, but has wilfully disobeyed it, lies on the person seeking such order of detention, lest the person seeking deprivation of the liberty of another cannot do so without fully satisfying the Court about its need.

(Para 50)

D. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 – Detention of Judgment debtor – Revisional jurisdiction -- High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must ascertain before interfering with any order passed by a subordinate court or tribunal whether the same suffers from any jurisdictional error -- Court should be guided by its conscience, more particularly keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and not strictly go by the term “jurisdictional error” -- It is very easy for the High Court to say that there is no jurisdictional error and, therefore, no interference is warranted but before saying so, the High Court should be mindful of the consequences that would follow like arrest, detention in civil prison and attachment of property.

(Para 53)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 – Execution of decree – Detention of Judgment debtor – Attachment of property -- Opportunity of hearing -- Executing court should have been a little more considerate while declining even to take the objections on record and give one opportunity of hearing to the appellants before passing the order of arrest, detention in a civil prison and attachment of the property -- This aspect overlooked even by the High Court while affirming the order passed by the executing court -- Supervisory jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is meant to take care of such situations -- Impugned orders set aside.

(Para 59, 60)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 7, 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Arbitration agreement -- An arbitration agreement is sine qua non for arbitration proceedings.

(Para 20)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 7, 11, 34 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 -- Ex-parte arbitration award – Setting aside of -- Objections filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the A&C Act were dismissed by the trial court on the ground that they were barred by limitation and had been filed beyond the condonable period -- Authenticity of the agreement cannot be established as it is not available on the record of the Municipal Board -- State Government has denied the existence of any such agreement – No evidence to show the existence of the arbitration agreement, except a piece of paper, which is not even a certified copy or an authenticated copy of the official records -- Arbitration, which is quasi-judicial, requires a standard of behaviour of arbitrators, which is impartial and independent, no less stringent than that demanded of judges – Both the Awards shall be treated as null and void and non-enforceable in law – Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, permits a party at the stage of execution to object to the decree, both on the grounds of fraud, as well as lack of subject matter jurisdiction – Appeals allowed, ex-parte awards set aside.

(Para 20-25)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Objection to jurisdiction -- Objections regarding the place of suing shall not be allowed unless such objection is taken in the Court/ tribunal of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity – High Court, while exercising its discretion, overlooked the provisions of Section 21 of CPC -- Order passed by High Court set aside -- Proceedings under the IBC will continue in accordance with the law.

(Para 4, 7, 8)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(vi) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, Article 22 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3 -- Compromise decree for immovable property – Pre-existing right -- Stamp duty -- Registration – Requirements of -- If a compromise decree involves immovable property other than the property for which a decree is prayed for, such a property would not be exempted and would require registration -- To avail the exemption from compulsory registration, the compromise decree arrived must be only in respect of the property that is the subject-matter of the suit -- Compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat and the award passed by the Lok Adalat thereto assume the character of a decree passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 and would also come within the ambit and purview of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act, 1908 -- In order to fall under the exception of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, 1908, the following conditions must be satisfied:

(i)There must be a compromise decree as per the terms of the compromise without any collusion;

(ii)The compromise decree must pertain to the subject property in the suit; and

(iii)There must be a  pre-existing right over the subject property, and the compromise decree should not create a right afresh.

(Para 7-10, 13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(d) -- Rejection of plaint – Limitation – Ground of -- Where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the trial Court.

(Para 26)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908, Order 41 Rule 27 -- Additional evidence -- Additional evidence sought to be led qua the unregistered Will -- Trial Court while dismissing the application noticed that numerous opportunities had been given to conclude evidence and despite the same petitioners/ defendants No.5 and 6 failed to produce their evidence and by way of the present application, they wanted to fill up the lacunae in their case which cannot be permitted in law – Evidence were not led at the proper stage -- Revision challenging the order dismissed.

(Para 1, 6-8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence -- Document sought to be produced by way of additional evidence by the respondents before the Appellate Court were well in existence and their knowledge -- Only reason assigned for not producing the same, is lack of knowledge to produce the same -- Plaintiffs want to patch up their evidence by adducing additional evidence in appeal -- Same is beyond the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 – Lower Appellate Court erred in allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 27 to lead additional evidence – Application dismissed.

(Para 19, 20, 23)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 25 – Additional issue at Appellate stage -- Specific plea with respect to adverse possession was raised by the defendants -- No issue was framed – Remand order shall only be in terms of Order 41 Rule 25 in form a reference to the Trial Court to take evidence and record findings on the additional issue No.3-A framed by the Lower Appellate Court.

(Para 21-23)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in plaint – Due diligence -- All the averments which are sought to be made in the amendment applications are with respect to the facts which were in the knowledge of the petitioner prior to filing of the original plaint/ written statement in the counter claim -- The only reason given for not incorporating the said pleas in the applications was that the petitioner is a layman and could not convey all the facts to the previous counsel -- Plea taken would clearly show that there was no due diligence on the part of the petitioner and thus, the amendment sought is hit by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in plaint – Contradictory plea -- Plea sought to be raised by the petitioner in the amendment is contradictory to the plea raised in the original plaint/ written statement -- Amendment cannot be allowed.

(Para 13)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration – Challenge to sae deed -- Advalorem court fee – Petitioner/ plaintiff was one of the executants of the sale deed sought to be challenged -- Although the petitioner has couched the suit as being suit for declaration but in fact the petitioner is seeking cancellation of the sale deed  -- It would be incumbent upon the petitioner to pay the ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in written statement -- Due diligence -- All the averments which are sought to be pleaded in the amended written statement are with respect to events which were in the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant on the date of filing the written statement -- No due diligence on the part of the petitioner-defendant and thus, the amendment sought is hit by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in written statement – After evidence -- Issues framed on 27.01.2021 and the plaintiff has examined as many as 7 witnesses and has closed his evidence on 12.09.2023 -- To rebut the plea taken in the original written statement that the agreement to sell did not bear the signatures of the defendant, the plaintiff has examined PW-7 Handwriting and Finger Print Expert -- Thereafter application for amendment of the written statement moved in which one of the plea sought to be raised is that the agreement to sell is “an anti dated agreement” – Application dismissed, order upheld.

(Para 1, 7, 8)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 13, 15 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 111 – Eviction of tenant – Appeal -- Mesne profit -- Determination of lease – Tenant purchased 50% share in tenanted premises – Merger of lessee’s estate in that of larger estate of ownership shall came into effect only when tenant acquires full ownership of the estate and not merely part thereof -- Thus, mere acquisition of share of the property cannot absolve the petitioner from his liability to pay use and occupation charges.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17 – Further cross-examination – Right of party -- There is no vested right in a private party to seek recalling of the witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3, 3A, Order 47 Rule 1, 2, Section 114, 151 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 19, 28 -- Compromise of suit – Lawful agreement – Requirements of law – Recalling application – Remedy of -- When the court disposes of a proceeding pursuant to a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3, it bears the duty to examine this issue and be satisfied that the agreement or compromise is lawful -- This issue can be agitated by way of a recall application even after the compromise decree has been passed -- Only the court that entertains the petition of compromise can determine its legality, at the time of recording the compromise or when it is questioned by way of a recall application -- No other remedy is available to the party who is aggrieved by the compromise decree as an appeal and fresh suit are not maintainable under the CPC -- Courts must not curtail statutorily provisioned remedial mechanisms available to parties – High Court to decide recall application on its own merits.

(Para 13-17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Limitation – Date of knowledge --  Suit for cancellation of registered sale deed in 2004, which they executed by conveying the plaint scheduled property in favour of the respondents in 2017 -- Alleged that the said sale deed was brought through fraudulent means and the Appellants came to know of it only in 2017, when the Deputy Collector issued notice to the Appellants on an application filed by the Respondents for correcting the revenue entries -- High Court was not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself -- Judgment of the High Court is unsustainable – Suit restored.

(Para 2, 13, 16)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22, 28(3) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 55 -- Suit for specific performance – Possession not part of decree – Execution of – Whether the relief of possession may be granted by the executing court in a case where the suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit property has been granted – High Court directed Executing Court to issue a warrant of possession of the suit property in favour of plaintiff-decree holder – Plaintiff can amend the plaint to include a claim for the relief of possession, partition, etc. at any stage of the proceeding, includes the stage of execution of the decree by the executing court -- Order upheld, SLP dismissed. Babu Lal’s case (1982) 1 SCC 525 & Rohit Kochhar’s case 2024 INSC 920 relied.

(Para 14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rule 5 – Legal heirs – Summary enquiry – Requirements of -- Where there is dispute in regards to legal heirs of deceased plaintiff or defendant the trial court should adopt summary inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code as to who is the legal heir from the rival claimants -- It is mandatory for the court to determine the legal heir taking into consideration the right to sue or be sued is surviving.

(Para 6.5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 16(1)(d) -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22, 28 – Territorial jurisdiction of Court -- Suit for specific performance – Possession not prayed specifically – Effect of -- It is clear from the terms of the contract between the parties that the transfer of possession of the suit property is implicit in the said contract and absence of a specific prayer seeking transfer of possession would not have any bearing on the character of the suit, which is one covered by Section 16(d) of the CPC.

(Para 33)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(xii) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), First Schedule, Article 18, 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 94 -- Auction sale – Sale certificate -- Stamp duty – Requirement of -- Sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration u/s 17(1) of the Registration Act -- Mere filing u/s 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority – However, Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles -- As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable -- It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.

(Para 7, 13-20)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 5 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Pleadings – Plea of Adverse possession – Admission of title -- Appellants did not specifically deny the plaintiffs' ownership of the suit property -- Instead, they primarily relied on the plea of adverse possession -- Allegations of fact not denied specifically are deemed to be admitted -- By asserting adverse possession, the appellants have impliedly admitted the plaintiffs' title.

(Para 8.1)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 35 – Presumption of revenue record -- Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness -- While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence.

(Para 8.2)

C. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Onus of proof -- In a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiffs must establish their ownership -- Plaintiffs have done so by producing revenue records and, subsequently, the registered sale deeds and mutation entries – Appellants/ defendants failed to deny the plaintiffs' title specifically and instead relied on adverse possession, the burden has shifted to the appellants/ defendant to prove their adverse possession.

(Para 9)

D. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession of State -- It is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens -- Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government -- Therefore, the State/ appellants' plea of adverse possession is untenable in law.

(Para 10, 11)

E. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession -- Placing bitumen drums, erecting temporary structures, and constructing a boundary wall in 1980 do not constitute adverse possession -- Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period.

(Para 12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3 -- Rebuttal evidence – Onus of proof – Effect of -- Onus of issue no. 1 was cast upon the plaintiff-petitioners and hence it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-petitioners to have led their evidence in the affirmative -- A party cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal the onus of which was cast upon the said party.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151 – Additional evidence -- Not a single averment in the application as to the relevancy of the documents -- In the absence of any explanation, the application has rightly been rejected.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151, Order 41 Rule 27 –  Rent appeal – Application for additional evidence – Pendency of -- Appellate Authority has to consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and decide the same either while passing the main judgment or by virtue of a separate order of even date at the time of deciding the appeal, which has not been done -- Judgment of the Appellate Authority set aside, case remanded back to the Appellate Authority.

(Para 4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Application pending since 2019 in civil suit of 2018 -- Though the reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff on 25.03.2019 but the said application has not been disposed of in the last more than 05 years -- Trial Court directed to dispose of the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC within next two months positively.

(Para 1-3)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Suit for mandatory injunction – Impleadment of Vendor as party -- Petitioner/ plaintiff purchased suit property -- However, the neighbours raised dispute as to whether the property was part of khasra number or part of Lal Lakir -- Plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the sub-Registrar/ Tehsildar to disclose the particulars of the property -- Said defendant was proceeded ex parte -- Trial court dismissed the application for impleading Vendor as party – Impugned order set aside as the vendors of the plaintiff are proper party to the suit -- Trial Court directed to permit the plaintiff to implead his vendors as a party to the suit and then proceed further in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 2)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 – Written statement not filed on time -- Defence struck off -- Despite more than one year, the written statement was not filed -- There was lapse on the part of the defendants in not filing the written statement but request made for granting only one opportunity to file written statement -- Case is still at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and not even a single witness has been examined -- Trial Court directed to provide only one opportunity subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondents-plaintiff.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 – Written statement not filed on time -- Defence struck off -- Petitioner/ defendant is single mother, who was unable to engage the counsel, due to which she could not file the written statement -- Trial Court directed to provide only one opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondents-plaintiffs.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 17, 18 – Cross-examination of plaintiff – Deliberate delay – Trial court declined prayer to cross-examine the plaintiff – Deliberate attempt on the part of petitioner-defendant No.2 to delay the proceedings -- Impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said unjustified -- Although, there is no justification for setting aside the impugned order, in the interest of justice, trial Court directed to provide one opportunity to him to cross-examine PW1/ plaintiff subject to costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to plaintiff-respondent.

(Para 5, 6)