Article 226 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 62 – Banking default case -- One Time Settlement/ OTS – Extension of time – Writ jurisdiction -- Borrower as a matter of right cannot claim extension of time – By the impugned judgment and order rescheduling the payment under the OTS Scheme and granting extension of time would tantamount to rewriting the contract which is not permissible while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Impugned judgment/ order quashed and set aside -- Consequently, the original writ petition filed by the respondent/borrower stands dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Article 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2), 17 – Insurance claim wrongly transferred by Bank – Default due to wrong Act of Bank -- Plea of -- Challenge to Section 13(2) Notice of SARFAESI Act – Writ jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy – Limitation -- Held, mainly challenged before the High Court was notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition -- Remedy available to the respondents/ loanee was to initiate proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Respondents relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – When such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits including the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that nothing was due and payable, if the amount received as insurance claim would not have transferred to the Working Capital Account -- Appeal allowed to the aforesaid extent -- If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be dealt with without raising the dispute with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of other requirements under the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 12.09.2022

Article 300A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 54, 64, 66, 89, 90 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18 – Auction sale -- Setting aside of – Acquisition of land by Improvement Trust – Trust failed to pay compensation assessed by Reference Court – In Execution, Trust not appeared despite service of notice – Ex-parte warrant for sale of attached property issued and property sold to auction purchaser – No material irregularity or fraud causing substantial injury to Trust established – Objector neither deposited the decreetal amount nor the amount equal to 5% of the purchase amount for payment to the auction purchaser as is required under Order XXI Rule 89 of the said Code – Though the right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India -- A person can be deprived of the rights of the property only in a manner known to law -- Acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question sought to deprive the owners of their land which had to be paid for in terms of the provisions of the LA Act -- Executing Court’s order affirmed, with cost of Rs. 1 lac.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Article 136, 323-B -- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (19 of 2010), Section 14, 15, 18, 29 – Re-constructing of resort – Public Interest litigation -- Construction was challenged in High Court –Jurisdiction/ Power of National Green Tribunal -- Interim order by High Court “In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.” – In proceedings before NGT, interim order that no further construction to be undertaken – Application for vacation of stay was rejected – Held, no law is necessary to state that insofar as the Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned – It was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction -- Orders passed by the constitutional courts would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals – Continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice – Proceedings pending before the learned NGT quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Article 226 -- Civil writ petition for compensation to victim -- Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – 100% permanent physical impairment – Keeping in view the principles laid down for awarding compensation in Naval Kumar’s case (2017) 3 SCC 115, Rs.95 lakhs awarded to the petitioner with interest payable @7% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition as compensation -- Amount enhanced considering the fact that 5 years have elapsed since the amount was awarded by the Supreme Court in almost similar circumstances and taking into account the cost of inflation, stated to be almost 15% as on date.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Article 226 -- Civil writ petition for compensation to victim -- Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – Liability of Electricity Supplier – Onus of proof – Strict liability -- In case of an incident involving electricity line, burden is essentially on the Electricity Board to plead and prove that it was not their fault and the snapping of the live wire can be described to be an act of negligence – When an incident of this nature is involved, inference can surely be drawn that there has been an element of carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining the supply line – Facts of the case lead to application of principle of “strict liability” -- Respondent-Nigam held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Article 226 -- National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3(E) – Demolition of shops and residence – Damages for – Writ jurisdiction -- Non-following of procedure as envisaged under Section 3(E) of The NH Act, 1956 alleged -- Since demolition had already taken place and damages are being prayed for, an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners by way of leading evidence -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18, Rule 3 – Suit for Permanent injunction – Handwriting and finger print expert in rebuttal evidence – Permissibility of – Defendants denied signatures on documents – Application to examine expert in rebuttal evidence -- Trial Court has rightly observed that the plaintiff had an opportunity to examine hand writing expert while leading evidence in affirmative -- Furthermore he could have called upon the defendants to admit or deny the documents in question which is not said to have been done -- He had an occasion to prove such documents during the course of his evidence -- He could not have possibly presumed that the documents would admit their signatures on family settlement and defendant No. 2 would concede the signatures on demarcation report -- Nature of the suit is one for grant of permanent injunction wherein main thing is to be seen is as to whether the plaintiff is in established possession of a particular piece of land and question of title is not to be decided – Revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2021

Article 136 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 -- Review after 56 years 6 days -- One can find no error apparent after 50 years for the Court to exercise the jurisdiction of review – It is an abuse of process of law and complete wastage of judicial time – SLP dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 13.08.2021

Article 136 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – SLP against review order – Maintainability of -- SLP would not lie against only a review order.

(SC) Decided on: 13.08.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Suit challenging gift deed – Defendant executed lease deed – Amendment of plaint – Revisional jurisdiction -- Trial Court dismissed application -- Held, any transaction with respect to the suit property during the pendency of the suit is governed by the principle of lis pendens -- Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ordinarily prohibits the amendment of the pleadings after the trial has commenced -- Trial has already made substantial progress -- Any transaction between the defendants and third party is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, particularly, when these are during the pendency of the suit -- Hence, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Section 227 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B – Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six month period for second motion -- It is a case of broken marriage between the spouses with little chances of their resuming cohabitation and living together -- Spouses are stated to have settled all the issues between them in an amicable manner and asking them to wait for a period of six months shall only amount to prolong their agony -- Petition accepted, parties to move an application for preponing the date of hearing and then the Court may pass appropriate order in light of the order passed in the revision petition.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Article 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) -- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12, 19 – SARFAESI proceedings -- Contempt of Court -- Undertaking before the High Court to make payment on specific dates – Non-honouring of commitment – Held, series of acts committed by the petitioners (i) in issuing post-dated cheques, which were dated beyond the date within which they had agreed to make payment; (ii) in allowing those cheques to be dishonoured; (iii) in not appearing before the Court on the first date of hearing with an excuse that was found to be false; (iv) in coming up with an explanation about their own debtors committing default; and (v) in getting exposed through the report of the SFIO, convinced the High Court to believe that the undertaking given by the petitioners was not based upon good faith but intended to hoodwink the Court – No fault with the High Court holding the petitioners guilty of contempt -- No dispute on facts that the mortgaged properties have now been sold and with extraordinary efforts, the Bank has also taken possession -- Petitioners have also spent 11 days in custody out of the total period of imprisonment of three months imposed by the High Court -- In such circumstances, it is sufficient punishment for the petitioners – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(SC) Decided on: 09.08.2021

Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Shamilat deh – Writ jurisdiction -- If the proprietors claim that the Shamilat land has never been reserved/used for common purposes, they can get their title decided from the Civil Court -- Writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. Jai Singh’s case 2003(2) PLR 658 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2021

Article 227 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 13-A (Haryana) – Eviction from Gram Panchayat land – Writ jurisdiction -- At the time when the decision was rendered on an application moved u/s 7 of the Act, 1961, the application/petition which was moved by the petitioners u/s 13-A of the Act for declaring them as owners of the land in question stood dismissed, the appeal against which was also dismissed by learned Commissioner and revision before financial Commissioner was also dismissed – Writ against those orders pending -- Mere pendency of an issue before a writ Court or a revisional Court where there is no stay granted with regard to possession, cannot be a ground for keeping the proceedings pending for all time to comes -- Pendency of the matter before the higher Court specially when a declaration sought for has been declined by the competent Court would not be an impediment for passing an order of eviction under Section 7 of Act, 1961.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.08.2021

Article 226 – Live-in-relationship – Police protection – Petitioner No.2 (boy) is of the age of 19 years and 9 months whereas petitioner No.1 (girl) is of the age of 20 years and 6 months – Petition disposed of with a direction to Station House Officer, that representation, if any, filed seeking protection of life and liberty, be got looked into and contents thereof be duly verified and if necessary, requisite steps be taken, strictly in accordance with law for grant of protection of life and liberty to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship -- Girl aged 23 years and boy 20 years – Protection of life and liberty -- Dismissal of protection petition – Latter Patent Appeal against – Having chosen to stay together, the appellants have exercised their choice out of their own free will -- Apprehension of the appellants cannot be said to be misplaced at this stage, especially when they have highlighted a grievance in this regard in their representation submitted to the SSP – Appeal allowed, impugned order set-aside and a direction issued to the SSP to look into the representation and if some substance is found therein, appropriate steps in accordance with law be taken so that the life and liberty of the appellants is not jeopardized in any manner, except in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Article 21, 226 – Live-in relationship – Life and liberty -- Police protection – Right of -- Petitioners are over 18 years of age, are in a live-in-relationship and they have an apprehension that the private respondents might cause physical harm to them -- Petition disposed of with a direction to SSP to look into the representation and take steps, if necessary, in accordance with law to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Article 226 -- Parole – Criminal writ petition -- On earlier parole, petitioner surrendered back on time and was not involved in any criminal activity – Present parole rejected -- It is disturbing that once a particular set of reasons have been specifically rejected by Court, the SSP has mentioned same reasons again -- 6 weeks' parole granted to the petitioner -- Respondent No.4 to file personal affidavit as to why identically same reasons were stated when first set of reasons had been rejected by High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Article 226 – Valuation of marks – Interference in -- Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner secured 63 marks in the written examination and 05 marks have been awarded to her for socio economic criteria, thus making aggregate secured total as 68 marks -- Petitioner self-acclaims to have secured 64 marks in written on the basis of some purported self-evaluation/ self-calculations, which has no legal sanctity – High Court cannot sit in appeal to re-evaluate the declared result and the valuation of marks awarded to the candidates by the expert examiners -- Merely because the petitioner has filed an affidavit, claiming therein, that she has secured 64 marks, is no ground to interfere.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Articles 226, 227 – Allotment of liquor vend license in residential area – Challenge to -- Petitioner stated to have made various representations -- Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of two weeks.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Article 227 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- 50% amount in fixed deposits – Revision against -- All the claimants are major by age; having lived a considerable number of years of social life -- While lying in F.D., the money may not generate the same additional value as it can create through a business enterprise or other means of income, which can be created through this money -- Petition allowed, order passed by the Court below; to the extent it has retained the 50% of the amount in the fixed deposits set aside -- Hence, entire amount ordered to be released to the petitioners, in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 3, 15 -- Run-away marriage – Police protection given – Marriage with minor – Voidable -- If upon actual verification, the age of the petitioners, especially petitioner no.1/girl, is found to be below marriageable age in terms of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the order will not bar proceedings under the provisions of that Act -- In terms of Section 3 of the said Act, a marriage performed by a child (as defined under that Act), may not be void but only voidable upon the said minor attaining maturity -- However, that still does not bar proceedings under that Act for entering into a marriage before the legally marriageable age as per the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Run-away marriage – Police protection – Aadhar Card as proof of age – Admissibility of -- Though the petitioners are shown to be 26 years and 25 years of age respectively, however, there is no firm proof of age of either of the petitioners other than their Aadhar Cards, which is actually no proof as no documentary proof is asked for at the time of applying for the Aadhar card or the issuance thereof -- However, since protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, petition disposed of with a direction to respondents no.2 and 3, to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not put to any harm or threat.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Article 226 -- National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Acquisition of land – Award by Arbitrator – Writ jurisdiction -- Competent authority assessed the amount of compensation, matter referred to arbitrator for re-assessment -- As per sub-section 6 of Section 3G the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under the Act -- Objections to the award of the Arbitrator are maintainable before the District Court -- Court did not find it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Article 226 -- Live-in relationship – Police protection – Right of -- Petitioners aged about 21 and 19 years -- Petitioners being major are entitled to live together in live-in-relationship and are also entitled to protection of their life and liberty against any harm from respondents No.4 and 5 -- Direction given to Senior Superintendent of Police to look into the grievances of the petitioners and take appropriate action for protection of their life and liberty as may be warranted by the circumstances.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.07.2021

Article 226 -- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A – Stamp Duty and penalty imposed – Challenged in writ -- Delay and laches -- Opportunity of hearing – Joint sale deed -- One of the co-sharers has duly been served and has represented the matter before the concerned authority -- Even qua the present petitioner, as per the record, the notice was sent to him and it has been received by an adult member of the family -- Mere alleged non-receipt of a notice by the petitioner, cannot be any ground to set aside the order – Otherwise also, the petitioner not substantiated as to how the deficiency in the stamp duty paid by the petitioner has been wrongly assessed -- Order was passed in the year 2016, petition has been filed only in the year 2021 -- Petition suffers from delay and laches, as well -- No ground for interference, the present petition is dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Article 226 -- Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C – Repudiation of insurance claim – Award by PLA -- Small amount involved – Writ jurisdiction -- Scooter was stolen FIR in this respect was duly registered -- Police authorities not being able to trace the vehicle, submitted an untraced report – Permanent Lok Adalat directed the payment of Rs.43,655/-along with interest on account of theft of a scooter along with Rs.5000/- each for mental agony, harassment and litigation charges -- Keeping in view the petty amount involved, Court did not find it a fit case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.07.2021

Article 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 14 -- SARFAESI proceedings – Writ jurisdiction -- Vide impugned order, the District Magistrate appointed a receiver to take possession of the secured assets of the petitioner-firm -- Petitioner-firm has failed to point out any illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondent-Bank and also the petitioner-firm not approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal for efficacious remedy -- When appropriate forum is provided under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, High Court stands injuncted from interfering with any matter arising out of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act -- Finding no merit, present petition ordered to be dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.07.2021

Article 226 – Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 115 – Non-disposal of revision/stay – Writ petition against -- Revision petition pending has neither been listed nor any orders on stay application passed -- It would be suffice to direct the respondent No. 1 to dispose off the revision petition including stay application, preferably, within a period of two months -- In the meanwhile, no order adverse to the interest of the petitioner shall be passed by the respondents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Article 226 -- Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973), Section 181 -- Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (24 of 1972), Section 4 -- Illegal encroachment on road – Non-removal of -- Writ of mandamus – Maintainability of -- Remedy of writ petition is not panacea to each and every inaction on the part of the State officials -- Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent the alternative statutory remedies -- Writ petition is an extraordinary remedy which can be invoked only after having attempted to get the desired relief by exploring all other options -- When the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation and a specific remedy is provided under law, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except in compelling circumstances -- Ordinarily, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the first instance -- Petitioners are relegated to the alternative remedy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Article 226 -- Tender matter – EPF Certificate – Requirement of -- Submission that as per clause 34 of the terms and conditions of the tender notice, the petitioner-society having less than 50 employees is not required to file any EPF certificate and an affidavit to this effect has already been submitted -- Respondent-State submits that orders on the issues raised by the petitioner society shall be passed expeditiously in accordance with law – In view the statement/undertaking the petition stands disposed of -- However, the aforesaid exercise may be undertaken by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur, preferably before finalizing the tender proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2021

Article 226 – Release of payment for carrying out various works for government agencies/departments -- Writ petition – Amount as claimed is admittedly due -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide legal notice in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within a period of two months and in case any payment is found due towards the petitioner, the same be released to him within six weeks thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.07.2021

Article 226 -- Live-in relationship – Police Protection – Right of -- Petitioner No.1 (male partner) is though married but his wife has deserted him to live with another partner -- Out of his wedlock, he has two children i.e. son aged 19 years old and daughter aged 16 years old, who are in his custody -- While on the other hand, petitioner No.2 is stated to be a widow and out of her wedlock she too is blessed with two children i.e. two sons aged 12 years and 7 years, respectively – Petitioners submits that the live-in-relationship is merely for the sake of better upbringing of the four children – Both the petitioners have decided to live under the same roof for providing them better co-parenting – Senior Superintendent of Police shall look into the threat perception of petitioner No.2 and in case, so warranted, provide her with mobile number of a lady police official to whom she can approach, in case of any untoward incident at odd hours, in case, she feels any threat to her life.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.06.2021

Article 226 -- Child marriage – Void-abinitio -- Hon'ble Supreme Court in Independent Thought's case, has given a suggestion to the Government of India and the State Governments to follow the decision of the State of Karnataka, which had declared child marriage as void ab initio through an amendment – This suggestion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was given in the year 2017, but the same is yet to attract the attention of the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, therefore, court feels it necessary to remind the States to consider this important issue to eradicate menace of child marriage.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2021

Article 226 -- Live-in relationship with minor girl – Police protection – Petition for -- Petitioner No.2 being only 14 years and 8 months old is a minor -- Petitioner No.1 is representing her, claiming himself to be the next friend of minor -- Petitioner No.1 is already an accused in case FIR and is accused of kidnapping the minor daughter of respondent No.5, therefore, his stand to claim himself as lawful representative of minor girl is not worth acceptance -- Writ petition dismissed -- SP, directed to depute a responsible police officer to ensure that the custody of the minor girl is restored to her parents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2021

Article 226 -- Live-in relationship – Police Protection – Right of -- Both the petitioners have attained the age of majority -- Petitioner No.1 is married with respondent No.4 and the marriage is still subsisting -- Petitioner No.2 is unmarried -- Petitioners are stated to be in live-in relationship and they are apprehending threat and danger to their life and liberty at the instance of respondents No.4 to 7 – Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent Senior Superintendent of Police to look into the grievance of the petitioners as projected in the representation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.06.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship – Minor girl -- Police protection – Right of -- Concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence – Petitioners have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the courts to judge them on their decision – Petition disposed of with directions to Senior Superintendent of Police to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of one week and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.06.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Live-in-relationship without divorce – Police protection – Right of – Matter referred to larger Bench -- Hon'ble Chief Justice requested to constitute a Larger Bench to decide the following questions:- 1. Where two persons living together seek protection of their life and liberty by filing an appropriate petition, whether the Court is required to grant them protection, per se, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case? 2. If the answer to the above is in the negative, what are the circumstances in which the Court can deny them protection?

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.05.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(a)(f)(q) -- Live-in relationship – Life and liberty – Protection of -- Petitioners have not approached court either seeking permission to marry or for approval of their relationship – Concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence – Even under D V Act, 2005, a woman who is in a ‘domestic relationship’ has been provided protection, maintenance etc. -- Thus, the female live-in-partners and the children of live-in-couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Parliament -- Petition disposed of with directions to grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Police protection petition -- Validity of marriage -- Scope of -- Present petition is only regarding the protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and, therefore, the validity of the marriage cannot be a ground for denial of such protection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.05.2021

Article 226 -- Custody of child – Writ of habeas corpus – Extra-marital relationship of mother -- Effect of – Extramarital relationship, the same by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that she would not be a good mother to deny her the custody of her child – Petitioner-mother and respondent-husband have divorced and a decree in this regard has been passed by a court in Australia -- These allegations against the petitioner being wholly unsubstantiated are not considered relevant to adjudicate the issue of custody of the minor child -- Child is under five years of age, she is an Australian citizen and the petitioner is fairly well settled in Australia – It would be in the best interest and welfare of the child if her custody is handed to the petitioner-mother.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Article 226 -- Custody of child – Writ of habeas corpus – Foreign judgment of divorce and custody – Effect of -- Parties had gone to Australia in furtherance of their career prospects -- Child was born in Australia and in initial years was brought up there – Petitioner-mother and respondent-father have divorced and a decree in this regard has been passed by a court in Australia – Order had been passed by the Federal court in Australia, directing the respondent-father to return the child to Australia -- Judgment of a foreign court would not be the only factor while considering the issue of custody of a child to a parent -- It would only be one of the factors for consideration and would be subservient to the paramount consideration of the interest and welfare of the child – When there is an order of the Australian Court, the child is under five years of age, she is an Australian citizen and the petitioner is fairly well settled in Australia – Court considered that it would be in the best interest and welfare of the child if her custody is handed to the petitioner-mother.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Article 226 -- Custody of child – Writ of habeas corpus – Paramount consideration – For issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the custody of a child as what is of paramount consideration is the interest and welfare of the child.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (i) – Recovery suit as mandatory injunction – Advalorem court fee – Rejection of plaint – Prayer of -- Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the court is entitled to carefully examine the contents of the plaint to arrive at a conclusion -- Plaintiff has claimed a definite amount of Rs.6,35,00,000/- -- Suit is for recovery although, styled as suit for mandatory injunction -- Ad valorem court fee is payable according to the amount claimed – Order of lower court, directing to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the amount claimed -- No ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2021

Article 226 – Auction sale by Bank/ Financial Institution -- Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Any Bank or Financial Institution shall not take action for auction in respect of any property of any citizen or person or party or any Body corporate till 30th June, 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Civil Suit – Extension of time for filing written statement -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Time for filing of written-statement or return in any Suit or proceeding pending before any Civil Court or any other forum, unless specifically directed, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021 -- It is however will not preclude the parties from filing such written-statement or return before 30th June, 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Interim orders/directions/ protection – Extension of -- All the interim orders/directions issued or protection granted including any order requiring any compliance by the parties to such proceedings, passed by High Court or any other Court subordinate to it or any Family Court or Labour Court or any Tribunal or any other Judicial or Quasi-Judicial forum, over which High Court has power of superintendence, which are subsisting today shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021 -- If undue hardship and prejudice of any extreme nature, to any of the parties to such proceeding(s), such parties would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief by moving appropriate application(s) before the Competent Court(s), Tribunal, Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Forum.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 – Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued to Government bodies in suo motu PIL – If the Government of Punjab, Haryana, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and/or any of its Departments and/or functionaries, Central Government and/or its departments or functionaries or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Public or Private Companies or any Firm or any individual or person is/are, by the order of this Court or any Court subordinate to it or the Tribunals, required to do a particular thing or carry out certain direction in a particular manner, in a time frame, which is going to expire at any time from now up to 30th June, 2021, the time for compliance of such order shall stand extended up to 30th June, 2021, unless specifically directed otherwise by the Court concerned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 – Eviction/ Demolition by government/ Corporation/ Council/ Board/ Panchayat etc. – Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – State Governments, Union Territory, Chandigarh, or any of its Departments or any Municipal Corporation / Council / Board or any Gram Panchayat or any other local body or any other agency and instrumentality of the State shall not take any action for eviction and demolition in respect of any property, over which any citizen or person or party or any Body Corporate, has physical or symbolic possession as on today till 30th June, 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Execution of eviction, dispossession, demolition etc. -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Orders of eviction, dispossession, demolition, etc. passed by High Court or any Court subordinate to it or any Tribunal or Judicial or Quasi-Judicial forum, which have so far remained unexecuted, shall remain in abeyance till 30th of June 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction – Local Commissioner report showing the property measured 48'x74' and not 20'x80' and there was a dispute as such as to which portion of land the petitioner is in possession -- It would be a matter of evidence as to whether the petitioner is in possession of property measuring 20'x80' -- In absence of any material record having been produced before the Courts below the injunction has been declined -- No case as such is made out for interference, revision petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Article 227 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B -- Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six months – Denial of -- Revisional against -- Marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken and now they have decided to part their ways, so that they both have an opportunity to live their lives in the manner they like and in the given situation -- Insistence of the Court below to wait to another six months would result in adding to their woes -- Revision petition allowed, Family Court, shall entertain the joint petition by waiving off six months period.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.04.2021

Article 14 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Acquisition of land – Challenge to -- Major chunk of the land released -- Petitioners case is not different from those land owners whose land already stood released -- Purpose for which the land was acquired is already vitiated as the proposed plan for which the land was acquired cannot be fulfilled by retaining the land of the petitioners -- Hence, denying to the prayer of the petitioners in not releasing their land would be a travesty of justice -- Action of the State in declining their prayer for release of their respective acquired land is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India -- Petitions allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 17.03.2021 Decided on: 09.04.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Objection to proper court fee – Dismissal of application – Appeal/Revision against – Maintainability of -- No further appeal or revision at the hands of the defendants is maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Article 227 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Execution of order -- Revisional Court’s power -- Enhancement of compensation by High Court in Appeal was ordered to be invested in a FDR and the interest accruing thereon be paid to the petitioner/ claimant – Ordering any deviation in the mode of investment would tantamount to modification of the judgement – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot modify the judgement and that too in proceedings arising out of execution of that very judgement.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Article 227 – Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 83 – Order of Wakf Tribunal -- Writ jurisdiction – Revisional jurisdiction -- Against an order of the Wakf Tribunal before the High Court, the High Court exercises the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India -- It is wholly immaterial that the petition was titled as a writ petition -- Certain High Courts, petition under Article 227 is titled as writ petition, in certain other High Courts as revision petition and in certain others as a miscellaneous petition -- In the light of proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act, the High Court exercised jurisdiction only under the Act -- Jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to only examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the findings recorded by the Wakf Tribunal -- High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act does not act as the appellate court -- Petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Act and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(SC) Decided on: 05.04.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Execution petition pending since 2016 – Revision against -- Warrants of possession have been issued on numerous dates but either the same have not been received back or have been returned back unexecuted – Direction given to Executing Court to finally decide the execution petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.03.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Application for amendment of written statement – Dismissal by Trial Court – Revision petition -- It is trite that the Courts are more liberal while allowing the amendment of a written statement viz-a-viz that of a plaint -- However, in the case not only the trial has commenced but the amendment sought by the defendant-petitioner would change the entire defence as raised by the him in his written statement -- Not only is the date of payment, but also the name of the person to whom the payment is stated to have been paid, is sought to be changed -- Amendment sought would not only cause prejudice to the plaintiff-respondent but would also necessarily entail a de novo trial, which is at the fag end -- Revision petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.03.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1909), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Order 43 Rule 1(r), Section 151 -- Dismissal of application u/o 39 R 1 & 2 by trial court -- Revisional jurisdiction – Petitioners have an alternate remedy available to them under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC of filing an appeal against the impugned order -- Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.03.2021

Article 226 -- Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 7 -- Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 2(c) -- Illegal colonies – Competent authority not taking any action – Writ petition -- Petitioner had been earlier approaching the respondents by way of representations followed by a subsequent notice through counsel which till date has not been responded to -- Competent authority seized of the matter, writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana to consider the legal notice and take a decision thereon positively within a period of two months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Respondent has unambiguously averred that after sale of the property in his favour he has become landlord and owner and that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties -- Grounds on which the petitioner is seeking rejection of the ejectment petition are a matter of evidence and are not germane for deciding the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC -- Though the property in the sale deed has been described as a house, however, the petitioner is not able to deny the fact that the description of the property is identical in both the sale deed as well as the ejectment petition – Rejection of the plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences -- This power has to be used in exceptional circumstances and should be used only when the Court is absolutely sure that the plaintiff does not have an arguable case at all -- Application filed by the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application dismissed by Trial court – Revision against dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2021

Article 226 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 26 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 14 -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007) -- Live-in relationship – Deed of live-in relationship – Legality of -- Protection of life and liberty -- Since such type of deed is not permissible in law, no benefit can be claimed by the petitioners -- Even otherwise, under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, petitioner No.2 is not competent to perform marriage and as such he is not competent to have a live-in-relationship with petitioner No.1 as he has not attained the age of marriage – As the terms and conditions of live-in-relationship relied upon by the petitioners referred to above, especially stating that it is not a ‘Marital Relationship’ is nothing but the misuse of the process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Interim order --Nature of modification which has been made by the High Court vide order impugned in the form of an ad-hoc interim arrangement, is exceeding its jurisdiction, and not within the realm of power of judicial review to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution -- It is well settled that by an interim order, even the final relief ordinarily should not be granted – Impugned order quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Article 15(3), 51-A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Restitution of conjugal rights – Transfer of case -- Complaint is already pending before the crime against women cell, Gurugram, it would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice if the same are tried and decided at one place -- Ethos as manifested under Article 51-A of Constitution of India envisage that it shall be fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of woman -- In addition, per Article 15 (3), power has also been conferred on the State to make special provisions for women and children – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was amended w.e.f. 23.12.2003 that in case of a wife being the petitioner, jurisdiction was conferred to the Court within local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the wife is residing on the date of presentation of the petition -- Without going into the allegations/counter allegations, the transfer application allowed -- Petition transferred to the District Judge, Gurugram.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Article 226 -- Parole – Marriage of relative – Conviction in NDPS case – Relative whose marriage is statedly fixed is not very closely related to the petitioner, Court not inclined to pass any order to allow emergency parole -- However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner ordered to be sent to the venue of the marriage in custody.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Article 226 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – Appeal and stay application before FC – Non-decision upon – Writ petition -- Appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 02.02.2021 but was adjourned to 20.04.2021 as the said officer did not hold the Court on that day – Application for preponement was listed on 23.02.2021, but has again been adjourned to 20.04.2021 -- Petition disposed of with directions that the stay application be heard and decided on 20.04.2021 by the learned Financial Commissioner -- In case there is any exigency in holding the Court on 20.04.2021, then the order be passed on the said application within a period of one week thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Article 226 -- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), Section 9 – Public premises – Eviction of -- Statutory appeal and stay application pending – Non-decisioning of -- Statutory appeal accompanied with an application for stay within the period of limitation, the same ought to be decided on merits -- Bank occupying the premises facing an eviction also involves the interest of the public as also customers of the bank -- Writ petition disposed of in terms of accepting the statement as regards the statutory appeal u/s 9 of 1973 Act to be decided expeditiously and for the stay application in any event to be decided within a period of one week -- Keeping in view the interest of the customers/public who would be availing the banking services in the premises in question, Municipal Corporation directed to de-seal the premises forthwith.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.03.2021

Article 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) – Possession notice – Challenge to -- After the deposit of Rs.20 lacs on conditional stay, the account of the petitioners was regularized on the direction of the court -- After regularization, the account again declared NPA on account of defaults – After the declaration of NPA afresh, fresh proceedings are to be initiated under the SARFAESI Act and the previous action, which is under challenge before Court, would need no adjudication -- A fresh cause of action would arise in favour of the petitioners after the initiation of fresh proceedings under the SARFAESI Act -- Petition rendered infructuous.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.03.2021

Article 226, 227 -- Non-allotment of Chamber -- Refund of amount -- Petitioner deposited Rs.3.5 lacs for allotment of chamber -- Draw of lots was held on 20.01.2019 but the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of eligible candidates -- Request was made to refund but the same has not been done – Direction given to refund the amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs to the petitioner along with interest @ 7% per annum from 01.02.2019 to be paid within a period of 2 months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2021

Article 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 (a) – Custody of minor – Writ of habeas corpus – Maintainability of -- Writ of habeas corpus would be maintainable to seek the custody of the minor child who is at the tender age of about 4 years -- Petitioner, a mother, entitled to maintain the writ of habeas corpus -- Detenue being a minor and under the age of 5 years should ordinarily be in the custody of the mother as stipulated u/s 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, unless the respondent is able to establish that she is unfit to do so – Writ allowed, custody given to the petitioner – Respondent no. 5 / Father is at liberty to approach the Guardian Court/Civil Judge for custody of the minor in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2021

Article 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Transfer petition -- Divorce by mutual consent -- Grant of divorce by exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – Jurisdiction of -- Joint application ought to be dealt with by a Bench comprising of two or more Hon’ble Judges as the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may consider appropriate -- Since the parties have settled their dispute through the process of mediation, the transfer petition has lost its utility and stands disposed of -- File to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions for giving effect to the terms of settlement entered into by and between the parties and broadly reflected in the joint application.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Article 142 – Power and jurisdiction of Single Judge under Article 142 of Constitution -- Provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution of India vests Supreme Court with the jurisdiction to pass any order or decree to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it -- A Judge sitting singly has the power and jurisdiction to issue orders or pass decrees as specified in the said Article.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Article 142, 145 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VI Rule (1) -- Divorce petition – Transfer application – Grant of divorce by exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – Jurisdiction of -- While sitting singly Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to take a decision on that plea made in the joint application -- One of the preconditions for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, the cause or the matter must be pending before it -- Transfer petition arose out of matrimonial dispute between the parties, but the expression ‘cause or matter pending before it’ cannot be stretched to cover all disputes originating from such matrimonial problem that can be resolved by Supreme Court, sitting singly, while hearing a transfer petition.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship – Life and liberty -- Police protection -- Petitioner no.1/ Lady left the house of husband and living with petitioner no. 2 in live-in-relationship – Petition disposed of with a direction to Superintendent of Police to look into the matter and to dispose of the representation in accordance with law, in case there is a genuine threat to the lives and liberty of the petitioners, then necessary steps warranted under law be taken thereupon at the earliest so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.02.2021

Article 21, 32 -- Inter-caste love marriage – FIR for missing of petitioner/girl – Protection of Life and liberty -- I.O. insisting for visit to police station for recording statement – Requirement of -- Marriage certificate received by I.O. and the conversation already been held with petitioner/girl, where she clearly stated that she was married to petitioner/boy and that she was feeling threatened and apprehensive of coming to the police station – Intervention of Court would really not have been required if the I.O. had conducted himself more responsibly in closing the complaint and if he really wanted to record the statement of the petitioner/girl, should have informed that he would visit her and recorded the statement instead of putting her under threat of action against petitioner/boy to come to the police station -- Police authorities are expected to take action in this behalf in the next eight weeks to lay down some guidelines and training programmes how to handle such socially sensitive cases -- FIR quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 08.02.2021

Article 226 -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 20 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Tenant company under liquidation proceedings – Eviction of – Remedy of -- Writ petitioner is calling upon High court to decree a suit for possession of tenanted premises in occupation of a company which is stated to be under liquidation -- Company was admittedly inducted as a tenant in the premises in dispute -- Company still exists and has not been dissolved – Held, urban tenancy in the State of Punjab, is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 -- Thus, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing a petition under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – If petitioner’s argument to the effect that the tenancy has come to an end, is accepted still the petitioner has a remedy of filing a civil suit seeking relief of possession – Writ petition disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.10.2020

Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) -- Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (47 of 2019) – Protest against CAA -- Shaheen Bagh protest – Blocking of roads – Legality of – Manner in which Administration should act is their responsibility and they should not hide behind the court orders or seek support therefrom for carrying out their administrative functions -- Courts adjudicate the legality of the actions and are not meant to give shoulder to the administration to fire their guns from -- Unfortunately, despite a lapse of a considerable period of time, there was neither any negotiations nor any action by the administration, thus warranting Court intervention -- Occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions -- Protests are subject to the legal position as enunciated above, with some sympathy and dialogue, but are not permitted to get out of hand.

(SC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Article 21 -- Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Compromise between parties – Withdrawal of suit – Maintainability of Execution proceedings – Void ib initio – Delayed revision – Acceptance of -- Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with the execution of the decree and order -- There exists neither any judgment nor a decree on the basis of the compromise -- There is merely an order, whereby the suit was dismissed as withdrawn -- In the absence of a decree or executable order, it is not understandable as to how the execution proceedings could have been initiated and further entertained by the Court below – Though, the revision petition has been filed after a delay of four years, yet to permit an illegal proceeding and an order, which is void ab initio, to stand would be travesty of justice -- Execution proceedings and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of the said execution proceedings are held illegal, null, and void.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.02.2020