Arbitration matter -- Attachment before judgment – Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act – Court exercising power u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Auction sale -- Setting aside of – Compensation assessed by Reference Court not paid – 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 – 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

Agreement to sell -- Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that since defendant No.1 has not admitted entering into any transaction with the plaintiff and defendant No.2 has also alleged that the agreement to sell and receipt set up by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents, the plaintiff had failed to prove prima facie case in her favour and balance of convenience also does not in her favour and she would also not suffer any irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted – Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed – Revision disposed of with observation that if on conclusion of trial, the plaintiff is able to prove her case then in terms of Section 144 CPC, she would be able to get possession of the plot in question after removal of construction, if any, raised by defendant No.2 and if the plot is sold further, that would be hit by principle of lis pendens and therefore, no necessity of grant of any ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff is there.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2021

Allowing of the application for leading evidence filed by the respondents by the learned trial Court will delay the finalization of the proceedings, but delay cannot have precedence over substantial justice to be done to the parties to the litigation – Petitioners held entitled for costs of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- as respondent/ plaintiff conceded to enhance the cost.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2021

Judgment of earlier litigation – Contention of Plaintiff that the application was wrongly allowed which was for placing a judgement of the High Court on record arose out of the judgment in O.S. No.22 of 1970, which was not a part of the record in the Civil Court – Held no prejudice is caused to the Plaintiff by the judgment being permitted to be adduced as additional evidence in the appeal -- Appeal dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.09.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Only reason pleaded in the application is that the award would cause wrongful loss to the appellant/insurance company -- Reason does not fulfill the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Disputing Landlord’ ownership -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- Provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 21.10.2022 Decided on: 31.10.2022

Defendants carrying out construction in full swing -- In case the pending application is decided against them, they shall be equally responsible to remove the construction, at their own cost and risk, subject of course to the final outcome of the civil suit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2021

Withdrawal of admission -- Merely because the trial Court has not proceeded to pass any order or give any judgment having regard to the admission made, it affords no right to the party concerned to withdraw the admission.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Rejection of plaint – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2021

Ad-interim injunction – Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that since defendant No.1 has not admitted entering into any transaction with the plaintiff and defendant No.2 has also alleged that the agreement to sell and receipt set up by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents, the plaintiff had failed to prove prima facie case in her favour and balance of convenience also does not in her favour and she would also not suffer any irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted – Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed – Revision disposed of with observation that if on conclusion of trial, the plaintiff is able to prove her case then in terms of Section 144 CPC, she would be able to get possession of the plot in question after removal of construction, if any, raised by defendant No.2 and if the plot is sold further, that would be hit by principle of lis pendens and therefore, no necessity of grant of any ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff is there.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2021

Property already mortgage with bank – Criminal proceedings initiated – Effect on civil rights -- Merely because the plaintiff had also preferred criminal proceedings would not be a ground to deny the benefit of the decree to him – Appellant/accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in criminal proceedings – Suit decreed by civil court, upheld.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.03.2021 Pronounced on: 23.04.2021

Wife of the appellant opposed the agreement by approaching the police -- Appellant himself applied for NOC to sell the property -- These factors would go on to show that the agreement had been entered into for the sale of the said property -- Almost 1/3rd of the amount had been received in advance and therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend that the same had not been executed by him willingly

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.03.2021 Pronounced on: 23.04.2021

Error had crept in due to inadvertence of the trial court, for no fault of the decree-holder -- From the record, it is clear that the LRs were brought on record of the case by the trial court and the name of GS was deleted from the array of parties, and this fact was missed by the trial court while passing the decree -- In the circumstances, the order of the Executing Court is sustained in the interest of justice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.01.2020

Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview -- Plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side -- This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Prayer for amendment is to be allowed: (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless; (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) he prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. -- Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. -- Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. -- Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed -- Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach -- The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment -- As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed -- Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – Suit for specific performance – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Application moved by the plaintiffs for amendment does not relate to pleading of a material fact, rather talks of an admission by defendant -- At the most, the plaintiffs may come up with a plea of estoppel, however, under the circumstances, the amendment of the plaint is not found to be necessary for just decision of the case.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2021

Suit challenging gift deed – Defendant executed lease deed – 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 -- Trial has already made substantial progress -- 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

Application dismissed – Observations of – Effect of -- It is well settled that observations made while deciding applications are never binding while finally deciding the suit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Refund of earnest money -- Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell -- Suit was at the stage of examination of defendant witnesses -- Trial Court allowed plaintiff to amend the plaint – Court do not find any manifest illegality in the order of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.02.2020

In the absence of any prejudice being pleaded or argued/ proved before High Court, the allowing of amendment of the prayer clause by the trial Court cannot be treated as arbitrary or beyond jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2021

Denovo trail -- 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 – Trial Court dismissed the application -- Revision against dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.03.2021

Amendment sought is only explanatory -- As per the provisions of Order VI Rule 2 CPC, the pleading has to be based upon the facts in concise manner -- Amendment of pleadings for the purpose of explanation cannot be allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.02.2021

Appellants not party to consent – Consent orders would consequently not have a binding effect on the Appellants -- Their rights could be examined independently in the substantive suit filed at their instance.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Maintainability of appeal -- Order XLIII Rule 1A CPC provides that in an appeal against the decree passed in a suit for recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should or should not have been recorded -- Appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree was maintainable.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Execution of order -- Appellate Court specifically observed regarding arguable points involved in appeal – Held, it would be appropriate if the stay application filed by the petitioners is decided by the first Appellate Court on the date fixed or within two weeks thereafter -- Till the decision of the stay application, learned executing Court requested to defer the proceedings for some future date.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2021

Execution of eviction order – Executing Court declined to stay the execution, warrants of possession issued – It is in the interest of justice that the Appellate authority be directed to take a final decision upon the appeal filed by the petitioner; and till then eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question be stayed – Direction issued to Appellate Authority to decide appeal within 3 months, dispossession stayed till the decision of appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.03.2021

Petitioner is a senior citizen and in possession of only one room in the family house -- Liberal approach has to be taken, keeping in view the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 CPC -- Report of the Tehsildar would also go on to show that she does not possess any other immoveable property and therefore, merely because a report has come that the house was newly constructed, it would not imply that the petitioner had sufficient means, as such -- She is drawing Old Age Pension of Rs.2000/- per month would also go on to show the indigence of the petitioner and thus, requiring social security from the State on account of her weak financial position -- Petitioner, thus, does not seem to be of such means whereby she can be held to have the capacity to raise the money to pay the Court fees -- If the same is not permitted, her right to file a first appeal against the suit decreed for recovery would be taken away -- Access to justice cannot be denied to an individual merely because he does not have the means to pay the prescribed fee -- Application under Order 33 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.09.2021

Gathering evidence -- It is a settled law that in a suit for permanent injunction, the matter pertaining to the possession of the suit property would have to be decided by the Court on the basis of evidence, oral or documentary, which would be led by the parties and not through a Local Commissioner as it would amount to gathering of evidence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.04.2021

Suit for partition -- Appointment of local commissioner cannot be made to collect the evidence for a party.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.04.2021

Demarcation of property – Opinion on encroachment – Permissibility of -- Local Commissioner should confine himself to only the demarcation of properties according to the revenue records without expressing any opinion on encroachment which is the judicial function to be performed by the trial court on the totality of evidence yet to be adduced by the parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2020

Section 9, 36 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 -- Securing the amount -- Attachment before judgment – Absence of averment -- Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act –Court exercising power u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Section 9 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 -- Securing the amount – Interim relief -- Attachment before judgment – Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act -- A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Section 9, 37 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 -- Securing the amount by interim relief -- Essar House Private directed to deposit an amount of Rs.35.5 crores with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court or, in the alternative, to furnish bank guarantee of any nationalised bank for the entire amount along with interest thereon – Prima facie, the refundable security deposit is not being released to Arcellor on the purported ground of a convoluted series of internal arrangements between group companies for diversion of the security deposits towards liquidation of alleged dues of Essar Steel to third parties -- No infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment and order of the Division Bench -- Appeals dismissed.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Jurisdiction of civil court -- Civil Court will have no jurisdiction in respect of matters, which are within the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer u/s 126 of Electricity Act or an appellate authority u/s 127 of the Act or an Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Act – Thus, what is barred is a challenge to an order passed by the Assessing Officer after complying with the safeguards provided therein – Held, if, the statutory safeguards are violated, which also results in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same can always be challenged before the Civil Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2021

Arbitration matter -- Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act – Court exercising power u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Arbitration matter -- Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act -- A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Setting aside of – Acquisition of land by Improvement Trust –Compensation assessed by Reference Court not paid – 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 – 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

Overruling of objection – Non-availing of remedy in time – Effect of -- As per Order XXI Rule 92, where an application is made under Order XXI Rule 89, Order XXI Rule 90 and Order XXI Rule 91 and the same is disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale and thereafter the sale shall become absolute -- As per Order XXI Rule 94, where a sale of immovable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser -- Such certificate shall bear the date on which the sale became absolute -- High Court ought not to have thereafter set aside the order dated 03.03.1998 overruling the objections raised by the judgment debtors, which order was not challenged by the judgment debtors before the High Court till the year 2000 – Impugned judgment cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Setting aside of -- High Court hold auction purchaser cannot be said to be the bona fide purchaser as he was related to the judgment creditor and that he was a partner of the firm in whose favour the mortgage was executed – However, application for setting aside was not filed on above ground it was submitted on the ground that no proper publication was made to get the adequate market value -- Therefore, the High Court has gone beyond the case of the judgment debtors – Even on merit High Court is not correct in observing that the auction purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser -- Partnership firm was already dissolved much before and thereafter the plaintiff inherited the assets, claims and liabilities of the firm.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Setting aside of -- JD did not deposit the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- i.e. sale consideration together with interest in terms of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC -- Not the case of the JD that there was any material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale -- Objection is that the decree was obtained by fraud -- Application submitted by the original judgment debtors under Order XXI Rule 90 was required to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed by the learned Executing Court.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Substituted service – Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh added a proviso to O 5 R 20 CPC which enables the Court to direct substituted service in such a manner as the court may deem fit -- Court after examining the various aspects, ordered service of the defendants through local proclamation (by beat of drum) and pasting of notice -- Case of the defendants themselves that they have shifted to Dubai -- Hence, there is sufficient compliance of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.08.2021

Rent laws -- Resjudicata -- Previous petition was for seeking eviction on account of the personal necessity qua the son of the petitioner, whereas in the present petition, which is filed after 07 years, personal necessity is pleaded on account of the fact that the petitioner himself has retired and has already shifted to Mohali for which he requires his house – Petitioner-tenant failed to prove that the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata -- Eviction order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2022

Auction sale in execution of consent decree – High Court hold auction purchaser cannot be said to be the bona fide purchaser as he was related to the judgment creditor and that he was a partner of the firm in whose favour the mortgage was executed – However, application for setting aside was not filed on above ground it was submitted on the ground that no proper publication was made to get the adequate market value -- Therefore, the High Court has gone beyond the case of the judgment debtors – Even on merit High Court is not correct in observing that the auction purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser -- Partnership firm was already dissolved much before and thereafter the plaintiff inherited the assets, claims and liabilities of the firm.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

SARFAESI proceedings – Rejection of plaint – Bank’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was allowed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Appeal against the said order was allowed by learned Additional District Judge – Where it cannot be disputed that an action under the Securitisation Act is based upon creation of an equitable mortgage jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred – Revision allowed, and impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge set aside, order passed by the trial Court is restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2021

SARFAESI proceedings – Rejection of plaint -- Except for a vague assertion that the officials of the Bank are in league with respondent No.2, there is no pleading regarding fraud by the Bank -- Material averments in the plaint do not even remotely suggest as to how the action of the bank is fraudulent or absured or untenable -- Suit is barred u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Order rejecting the plaint affirmed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2021

Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Eviction of lessee -- Mesne profit – High Court has considered the fair rate of return @ 6.5% annually on the amount of Rs. 5.50 crores for which the appellant purchased the property in the year 2008, determining the monthly compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- – Aforesaid method cannot be accepted, High Court was required to undertake exercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises – Matter remitted back to High court.

(SC) Decided on: 09.11.2022

Section 9 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36, 37 – Injunction simplicitor – Maintainability of -- Ratio of the judgment passed in Anathula Sudhakar’s case, Civil Appeal No.6191 of 2001, dated 25.03.2008 passed by the Supreme Court is that the relief of injunction simplicitor cannot be sought by a person whose title over the property is in dispute -- Plaintiffs’ title over the suit property was not in dispute, though the defendants made a deplorable attempt to dispute the same by concealing relevant facts from the Court – Therefore, the defendants cannot raise any plea based upon the judgment.

(P&H HC) Reserved on 29.10.2022 Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of Divorce petition -- Kapurthala to Fazilka -- It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses – Case transferred.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Order 20 Rule 12 – Mesne profit -- There is no provision for assessment of mesne profits in a suit for possession without an enquiry in terms of the Order XX Rule 12 of CPC -- No such enquiry has either been conducted by trial Court – Held, no justification for the lower appellate Court to fix the mesne profits and direct the petitioner to pay the amount along with arrears.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 14.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Order 20 Rule 12 – Mesne profit -- Suit property was never rented out to the petitioner, nor had its rent been assessed -- Therefore, the concept of depriving the landlord of rent during pendency of appeal does not apply -- Respondent cannot claim mesne profits based upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 212.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 14.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 60(1)(i), Order 21 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 55 Order 21 Rule 30 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Order 21 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Order 12 Rule 6 – Admission by parties – Withdrawal of admission -- Merely because the trial Court has not proceeded to pass any order or give any judgment having regard to the admission made, it affords no right to the party concerned to withdraw the admission -- Provision does not, either explicitly by necessary implication, permit the party making the admission to withdraw the same; it only enables the Court to make an order or give a judgment having regard to it.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Order 12 Rule 6 -- Statement of admission -- Withdrawal of statement -- Once a statement has been made on solemn affirmation, it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Order 6 Rule 17, Order 14 Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 25 -- East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Additional issue – Disputing Landlord’ ownership -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Said orders have attained finality – No occasion for the tenants to agitate the issue again before High Court – It is an abuse of the process of law – Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- It cannot by any stretch of imagination, therefore, be said that the Controller has “omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact” -- Therefore, provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable – Held, tenants could not invoke by filing the application, beseeching the Appellate Authority to frame additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord and refer the same to the Rent Controller for recording evidence thereupon -- Nor could the tenant file the other application Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing of issues -- Revision dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 21.10.2022 Decided on: 31.10.2022

Order 7 Rule 11 -- Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 102, 128 – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Rejection of plaint -- Question of law is whether in view of Section 102 read with Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred? – Prayer is to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to hand over the complete documents with a consequential relief of declaration that conveyance deed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 is illegal and liable to be set aside. Though the trial Court allowed the application, however, the lower appellate Court recorded a finding that since in the civil suit, there is pleading of fraud with regard to execution of the conveyance deed, on the basis of certain documents, which were prepared by the defendants in collusion with each other, therefore, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction and the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The lower appellate Court also recorded a finding that Section 102 read with Sections 128 & 130 of the Act deals with reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator and regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Courts, however, nothing is stated under Section 128 of the Act that jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be barred, if a suit is filed on the basis of fraud. At the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is primarily to see the pleadings in the plaint or the documents attached with the plaint. In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that conveyance deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.2 by playing fraud -- Therefore, question of law decided in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff -- No illegality or infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 20.09.2022

Order 1 Rule 10 – Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant -- Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession -- As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis -- Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs -- Appeal allowed, Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the trial Court allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 16.09.2022

Section 11 – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Personal necessity – Resjudicata -- Previous petition was for seeking eviction on account of the personal necessity qua the son of the petitioner, whereas in the present petition, which is filed after 07 years, personal necessity is pleaded on account of the fact that the petitioner himself has retired and has already shifted to Mohali for which he requires his house – Petitioner-tenant failed to prove that the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata -- Eviction order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2022

Order 38 Rule 5 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9, 36 – Securing the amount -- Attachment before judgment – Absence of averment -- Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act –Court exercising power u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Order 38 Rule 5 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9 – Securing the amount – Interim relief -- Attachment before judgment – Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act -- A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Order 38 Rule 5 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9, 37 – Securing the amount by interim relief -- Essar House Private directed to deposit an amount of Rs.35.5 crores with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court or, in the alternative, to furnish bank guarantee of any nationalised bank for the entire amount along with interest thereon – Prima facie, the refundable security deposit is not being released to Arcellor on the purported ground of a convoluted series of internal arrangements between group companies for diversion of the security deposits towards liquidation of alleged dues of Essar Steel to third parties -- No infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment and order of the Division Bench -- Appeals dismissed.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Order VII Rule 11 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 17(4A), 34 -- SARFAAESI proceedings – Lessee rights -- Rejection of plaint – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Once there is a specific amendment enabling the persons claiming tenancy or lease hold rights to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Civil Court has erred in rejecting the application -- Even the period of lease has already expired -- Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2022

Order 7 Rule 11 – Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Section 28, 38 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Suit for custody of child -- Rejection of plaint – Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Previously divorce by mutual consent between the parties – Voluntarily statement of father for giving the custody of the child to the mother -- Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Order 21 Rule 54, 64, 66, 89, 90 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18 – Constitution of India, Article 300A -- 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

Order 6 Rule 17, Order 2 Rule 2 -- Amendment of plaint -- Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview -- Plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side -- This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Prayer for amendment is to be allowed: (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless; (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) he prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of pleadings -- In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of pleadings -- Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. -- Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. -- Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. -- Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint -- Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed -- Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint -- Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach -- The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment -- As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed -- Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Suit for specific performance – Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – Amendment of plaint -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Effect of -- No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Order 12 Rule 6 – Object and the purport of Order 12 Rule 6 -- Provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for full-fledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence -- Therefore, to save the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Order 12 Rule 6 – Judgment on admission – Stage of – To pass a judgment on admission, the Court if thinks fit may pass an order at any stage of the suit.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Order 12 Rule 6 – Judgment on admission – Discretion of court – Power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6 – Power cannot be claimed as a matter of right. S.M. Asif’s case (2015) 9 SCC 287 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Ad-interim injunction – Agreement to sell -- Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that since defendant No.1 has not admitted entering into any transaction with the plaintiff and defendant No.2 has also alleged that the agreement to sell and receipt set up by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents, the plaintiff had failed to prove prima facie case in her favour and balance of convenience also does not in her favour and she would also not suffer any irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted – Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed – Revision disposed of with observation that if on conclusion of trial, the plaintiff is able to prove her case then in terms of Section 144 CPC, she would be able to get possession of the plot in question after removal of construction, if any, raised by defendant No.2 and if the plot is sold further, that would be hit by principle of lis pendens and therefore, no necessity of grant of any ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff is there.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2021

Order 33 Rule 1 – Order 44 -- Appeals by Indigent Persons -- Petitioner is a senior citizen and in possession of only one room in the family house -- Liberal approach has to be taken, keeping in view the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 CPC -- Report of the Tehsildar would also go on to show that she does not possess any other immoveable property and therefore, merely because a report has come that the house was newly constructed, it would not imply that the petitioner had sufficient means, as such -- She is drawing Old Age Pension of Rs.2000/- per month would also go on to show the indigence of the petitioner and thus, requiring social security from the State on account of her weak financial position -- Petitioner, thus, does not seem to be of such means whereby she can be held to have the capacity to raise the money to pay the Court fees -- If the same is not permitted, her right to file a first appeal against the suit decreed for recovery would be taken away -- Access to justice cannot be denied to an individual merely because he does not have the means to pay the prescribed fee -- Application under Order 33 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.09.2021

Section 151 -- Inherent power of civil Court – Nature of -- It is a very vast power, which can be exercised by the Court for achieving ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court -- Unnecessary interference in exercise of such power by the trial Court is uncalled for.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.09.2021

Section 151 -- Exhibition of documents – Replacement by original – Permissibility of -- Plaintiff placed on record copy of the sale deed, duly attested by Notary Public, which had been exhibited, though, it was subject to objection with regard to mode of proof and admissibility raised on behalf of the defendant -- Plaintiff sought to place on record the original sale deed and to exhibit it just to remove the technical objection -- Trial Court considering all the aspects of the case, exercising powers u/s 151 CPC had allowed that application -- Such exercise of power by the trial Court can certainly be not termed as arbitrary or perverse, rather, it comes out that such power has been exercised in a judicious manner for proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.09.2021

Order 18 Rule 3 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 9 Rule 13 – Ex-parte judgment and decree – Setting aside of – Service through registered post and publication – Value of -- Trial Court while dismissing the application has observed that notice of the suit was sent to respondent as per registered AD post, which was not received back even after 30 days, therefore, presumption of service was drawn but as a matter of extra caution, notice to defendant was ordered to be given by way of publication in the newspaper “The Tribune” -- Publication was effected on 20.02.2010 but the defendant did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte -- Therefore, there was no reason for setting aside of ex parte order and ex parte decree -- Learned Addl. District Judge agreed with learned trial Court – Held, orders passed by the Courts below are quite detailed and well-reasoned, they do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, much less the same being arbitrary or in violation of settled legal position -- No ground to interfere.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.09.2021

Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence at appellate stage – Judgment of earlier litigation – Relevancy of -- Contention of Plaintiff that the application was wrongly allowed which was for placing a judgement of the High Court on record arose out of the judgment in O.S. No.22 of 1970, which was not a part of the record in the Civil Court – Held no prejudice is caused to the Plaintiff by the judgment being permitted to be adduced as additional evidence in the appeal -- High Court thoroughly discussed the entire evidence to come to a conclusion that the Plaintiff has not made out any case for declaration of title over the disputed property in her favour -- Judgement of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court on appreciation of the evidence, with which we agree. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.09.2021

Order 6 Rule 2 – Amendment of plaint -- Application moved by the plaintiffs for amendment does not relate to pleading of a material fact, rather talks of an admission by defendant -- Plaintiffs are required to prove their own case, though, they may seek some help from admission made by one of the defendants but then the Court shall have to see as to under what circumstances, the admission was made, whether it binds the other defendants or not and what weightage is to be given to the same -- At the most, the plaintiffs may come up with a plea of estoppel, however, under the circumstances, the amendment of the plaint is not found to be necessary for just decision of the case.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2021

Section 27, Order 5 Rule 20 -- Service through WhatsApp/ E-mail -- Prayer seeking direction to effect service upon the respondents by email and whatsapp – Applicant permitted, would furnish an affidavit to the effect that the email and whatsapp numbers are correct and that email sent has not bounced back as well as to take a screen-shot of the service of the summons through whatsapp upon both the respondents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2021

Order 9 Rule 8, 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Dismissed in default – Restoration of – Delay in application – Trial Court adopted hyper-technical approach while dismissing the applications -- Rules of procedure provisions of law are meant to advance ends of justice -- Courts while dealing with such like matters should endeavour to see that a lis is decided on merits rather than non-suiting a party on technical grounds -- If a litigant is grossly negligent and casual in his approach with regard to the litigation in which he is involved, then he does not deserve any sympathy or leniency for the default committed by him with regard to putting in appearance in the Court -- However, if sufficient reasons are given for non-appearance, then a very rigid and technical view in the matter should not be taken.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2021

Order 9 Rule 8, 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Dismissed in default – Restoration of – Delay in application – Plaintiffs are Non-Resident Indians and are of very old age -- They have rendered a plausible and satisfactory explanation for their non representation in the Court, when the case was dismissed for non-prosecution -- Trial Court should have considered the prayer of the plaintiffs to get the suit restored by condoning the delay in filing of the application sympathetically -- Claim ought to be adjudicated on merits rather than being rejected for technical reasons – Revision petition accepted; the impugned order set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court -- Trial Court may allow the applicants to lead evidence in support of their contentions, if so desired and then after hearing learned counsel for the applicants, a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of observations made in this order be passed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2021

Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- 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

Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- SLP against review order – Maintainability of -- SLP would not lie against only a review order.

(SC) Decided on: 13.08.2021

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 7 Rule 11 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) -- SARFAESI proceedings – Challenge in civil suit -- Rejection of plaint – Bank’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was allowed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Appeal against the said order was allowed by learned Additional District Judge – Where it cannot be disputed that an action under the Securitisation Act is based upon creation of an equitable mortgage jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred – Revision allowed, and impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge set aside, order passed by the trial Court is restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2021

Order 5 Rule 20 – Substituted service – Local proclamation – Beat of drum -- Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh added a proviso to O 5 R 20 CPC which enables the Court to direct substituted service in such a manner as the court may deem fit -- Court after examining the various aspects, ordered service of the defendants through local proclamation (by beat of drum) and pasting of notice -- Case of the defendants themselves that they have shifted to Dubai -- Hence, there is sufficient compliance of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.08.2021

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in the prayer of plaint -- Challenge to the amendment can only be made in case any of the party feels aggrieved on the ground that the said amendment is causing prejudice -- In the absence of any prejudice being pleaded or argued/ proved before High Court, the allowing of amendment of the prayer clause by the trial Court cannot be treated as arbitrary or beyond jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2021

Section 9 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – 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

Section 25 – Transfer petition – Ground of territorial jurisdiction – Scope of -- Suit for infringement of trade mark as also copyright infringement – Court find no scope of going into the question of as to whether the Court in which the suit is instituted has territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the suit or not in a petition for transfer of a suit invoking Section 25 of the CPC -- This point is required to be urged before the Court in which the suit is pending -- Plea of transfer of the said suit declined.

(SC) Decided on: 02.08.2021

Order 8 Rule 10 – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Delay in written statement -- Court has the power and jurisdiction to accept written statement beyond the period of 90 days in appropriate cases -- Petition was listed for 23.08.2018 was adjourned on 21.08.2018 for 28.09.2018 as the presiding officer was availing casual leave -- Written statement was clearly ready on the said date -- Landlord has yet to lead evidence – Petitioner/tenant shall suffer irreparable loss and manifest injustice, in case, he is not permitted to file written statement and his defence is struck of -- Written statement of the petitioner should be taken on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.07.2021

Section 9 -- Pendency of Suit for 26 years – Early decision of suit -- A suit is pending at the first stage, and the Courts have to decide the appeal and the second appeals which would arise thereafter – Parties will cooperate for an early trial to the suit and the trial court will endeavor to give a quietus to the issues before it preferably in a period of one year.

(SC) Decided on: 22.07.2021

Section 100 -- Recovery suit decreed -- New plea in Second appeal – Permissibility of -- Defendants did not object to the passing of the decree on the ground that no decree could be passed against defendants no.2 and 3, personally -- During hearing of the first appeal, plaintiffs did not object to the decree passed by the learned trial court on this aspect -- It would not be appropriate to permit the appellants to put forth new plea.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Section 152, 153 -- Correction in pleadings after judgment – Permissibility of -- Application dismissed on the ground that such amendment cannot be allowed because the entire evidence had been led on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings – Held, once the court comes to a conclusion that the clerical or arithmetic mistake has crept in due to any accidental slip or omission, the same can be permitted to be corrected not only in the pleadings but also in the evidence as well as in the judgment and the decree passed -- Section 153 CPC further enables the court to amend any defect or error in any proceedings in a suit – Held, Ld. trial court was required to record the finding as to whether such error was result of clerical or arithmetic mistake or not – Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the scope of an application filed u/s 152 CPC in a correct perspective – Impugned order set aside with a direction to the learned trial court to re-decide the application in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.07.2021

Order 15 Rule 5 -- Mesne profit – Denial of possession – Stage of – Defendant-petitioner is canvassing that it had already vacated the suit premises and is, therefore, not liable to pay any mesne profits – However, there is no assertion by the defendant-petitioner in it’s written statement that it had handed over possession of the suit premises on such and such date to the plaintiffs-respondents – Nothing on record to show that the defendant-petitioner had handed over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs-respondents – Once the defendant-petitioner has not denied in it’s written statement that it is in possession of the suit premises it cannot take a contrary stand merely to avoid paying the mesne profits.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.07.2021

Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte proceedings – Setting aside of -- Defendant is a private limited company -- On the basis of notice sent through registered cover and report of the postman regarding refusal, the defendant was proceeded ex parte in the suit -- Postman has not been examined in evidence -- Plaintiff knew that the Director of the defendant-Company works in Paras Hospital, Gurugram, however, no effort was made to serve the defendant on that address -- Summons were served at the place of an under construction building -- Plaintiff itself was carrying on with the construction work on the aforesaid building – Ld. trial court allowed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC -- No ground to interfere with the order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Order 21 Rule 30 -- Execution of decretal amount -- Simultaneous attachment of property and detention in prison – Power of -- As per the provision of Order 21 Rule 30 CPC, both the procedure with respect to attachment and also detention in prison can be taken against the petitioners/Judgment Debtors either individually or simultaneously -- Even in a situation where the amount is partly recovered by attachment and sale, for the recovery of balance amount in any case, the detention in civil prison can be ordered.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of decretal amount – Conditional warrant of arrest -- Show cause notice was issued and, the petitioners were both served and petitioner No.1 appeared and sought time to make payment and thereafter, stopped appearing – In case the payment is made as per the calculation sheet, then the Judgment Debtor/petitioner No.2 is not to be arrested and it is only in case the payment is not made that he has to be arrested and produced before the Court -- Thus, the procedure adopted by the Executing Court for the issuance of conditional warrant of arrest is absolutely legal and in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of decretal amount – Warrant of arrest -- As per the provisions of Order 21 Rule 37 CPC, show cause notice is required to be issued to the Judgment Debtors to show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison -- As per Sub-Clause 2 of Rule 37 of Order 21, it has been stipulated that where appearance is not made in obedience to the notice, the Court shall, if the Decree Holder so requires, issue a warrant for the arrest of the Judgment Debtor.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Order 23 Rule 3 -- Suit for declaration -- Compromise beyond suit property – Permissibility of -- Compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and is thus a legal settlement.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Order 41 Rule 27 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Additional evidence -- Only reason pleaded in the application is that the award would cause wrongful loss to the appellant/insurance company -- Reason does not fulfill the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Order 41 Rule 27 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Insurance company has taken a stand that the claimants in collusion with the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have filed the claim petition, whereas on the other hand, now the insurance company wants to examine the driver – Ld. Tribunal had given sufficient opportunities to the driver and the owner as well as to the insurance company to lead their evidence but they failed to do so -- Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction against co-sharer – Exclusive possession – Pleading of – Application dismissed/ Appeal also dismissed – Revision against -- Petitioner nowhere pleaded in his suit that he is in exclusive possession of the suit property – Petitioner/ Plaintiff had relied on electricity bills, photographs of the house, gas connection, pass book etc. -- Respondent-defendants had placed on record electricity bills with payment receipts -- As the exclusive possession of the petitioner had not been pleaded and not been established there appears to be no ground to interfere with the orders of the Courts below -- Interest of the petitioner has been adequately protected by the observation that the defendant-respondents cannot claim any benefit or compensation for any construction made by them during the pendency of the suit and the same would be at their own risk and responsibility -- A suit for partition between the parties is already pending -- Rights and shares would be determined therein -- No merit in the revision.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.06.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) -- SARFAESI proceedings – Civil suit – Maintainability of -- Rejection of plaint -- After the Bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and issued a notice dated 09.08.2019 u/s 13(2) thereof, the petitioner filed the suit on 19.09.2019 wherein besides seeking declaration as to his share and challenging the Will, he has also sought injunction restraining the Bank from selling/auctioning the property -- The facts give a clear impression that the action has been taken by the petitioner with an intention to create a hurdle so that the Bank is not able to recover its dues – 'No Objection Certificate' has been given by him at the time the property was mortgaged with the Bank -- Section 34 of SARFAESI Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is required to determine by or under the Act -- Except for a vague assertion that the officials of the Bank are in league with respondent No.2, there is no pleading regarding fraud by the Bank -- Material averments in the plaint do not even remotely suggest as to how the action of the bank is fraudulent or absured or untenable -- Suit is barred u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Order rejecting the plaint affirmed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2021

Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte decree – Setting aside of – Stay of dispossession -- Due to lockdown, the application has been adjourned to 06.07.2021 -- Executing Court has already got registered a sale deed in favour of the respondent and now the efforts are being made to dispossess the petitioner -- Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed till next date of hearing i.e 06.07.2021 -- Trial court requested to take up the main application as well as the application for grant of interim on the date already fixed and pass appropriate orders.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.05.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (i) – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 9 Rule 8, 9 -- Wrong noting of date by counsel – Suit dismissed in default – Restoration of -- Serious prejudice would indeed be caused to the petitioner in case the order under challenge is not set-aside -- Respondents will not be prejudiced in case the suit is restored to its original position, as the same is at very preliminary stage, wherein the pleadings are also yet to be completed -- Bona fides of the petitioner are borne out from the fact that he had deposited heavy court fee and had been diligently following up with his counsel -- Default, if any, is attributable to his counsel -- Said default of counsel for the plaintiff/ petitioner has been justified by giving cogent reasons – Without issue notice to the respondents/ defendants, revision allowed -- Civil suit ordered to be restored subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2021

Order 12 Rule 6 -- Oral partition – Admission of -- Legality of -- Parties to the suit implemented the same and are already enjoying their respective separate possession -- It is settled law that admission is the best piece of evidence which can be used against a party and since the plaintiffs have not disputed this fact that the oral partition took place -- Therefore, their claim for partition of suit property is without any merit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.04.2021

Order 26 Rule 9 – Suit for partition -- Non-appointment of Local Commissioner – Right of – Onus to prove the claim raised in the suit was upon the plaintiffs, who not only failed to lead any evidence on this material issue, but admitted the defence of the defendants – Even otherwise, the appointment of local commissioner cannot be made to collect the evidence for a party.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.04.2021

Order 26 Rule 9 – Suit for permanent injunction – Appointment of Local Commissioner -- It is a settled law that in a suit for permanent injunction, the matter pertaining to the possession of the suit property would have to be decided by the Court on the basis of evidence, oral or documentary, which would be led by the parties and not through a Local Commissioner as it would amount to gathering of evidence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.04.2021

Order 6 Rule 4 -- Evidence law -- Execution of agreement to sell – Willingness of -- Wife of the appellant opposed the agreement by approaching the police -- Appellant himself applied for NOC to sell the property -- These factors would go on to show that the agreement had been entered into for the sale of the said property -- Almost 1/3rd of the amount had been received in advance and therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend that the same had not been executed by him willingly.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.03.2021 Pronounced on: 23.04.2021

Order 6 Rule 4 -- Misrepresentation – Undue influence – Proof of – It is settled principle that allegations of misrepresentation or undue influence have to be given in full and precise particulars and then duly proved under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.03.2021 Pronounced on: 23.04.2021

Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 8 Rule 10, Section 151 – Written statement not filed within 90 days – Defence struck off – Inherent power of Civil Court -- Trial court allowed the application without recalling the earlier order vide which defence of the defendant was struck off for non-payment of costs of Rs.500/-, as well as, having not filed the written statement within the permissible period of 90 days – Held, Trial court is vested with inherent powers u/s Section 151 CPC to correct any mistake and/or recall its own order in the interest of justice, at a later stage, if the circumstances are made out.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2021

Section 9 -- Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 126, 127, 135, 145 – Theft of electricity – Assessment of electricity charges – Suit for declaration and injunction -- Maintainability of -- Civil Court will have no jurisdiction in respect of matters, which are within the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer u/s 126 or an appellate authority u/s 127 of the Act or an Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Act – Thus, what is barred is a challenge to an order passed by the Assessing Officer after complying with the safeguards provided therein – Held, if, the statutory safeguards are violated, which also results in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same can always be challenged before the Civil Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2021

Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment in plaint – Application dismissed – Observations of – Effect of -- It is well settled that observations made while deciding applications are never binding while finally deciding the suit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Order 7 Rule 1(i), 11 – Objection to drafting of plaint -- Rejection of plaint – Objection that plaint not drafted in accordance with Order 7 Rule 1 (i) – Held, matter can be examined by the court while finally adjudicating the suit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 14 Rule 1 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 – Proof of Will – Onus of – Framing of issue – Onus was upon the plaintiff to get the issues framed rightly if he was wanting to set up the plea that the onus of the Will should have been upon the propounder.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 19.03.2021 Pronounced on: 08.04.2021

Order 21 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 9 Rule 13, Section 151 -- Ex-parte judgment – Setting aside of -- Summon under NI Act was issued for 01.10.2016 and in the civil suit for appearance of respondent on 19.10.2016 -- Compromise between the daughter of Plaintiff/ petitioner and the respondent/defendant and after receiving the final installment, daughter of petitioner withdrew the complaint on 21.01.2017 -- Whether or not the present transaction was a part of compromise is clearly the subject matter of trial and shall be decided accordingly by the ld. trial Court on the basis of evidence -- Respondent successfully proved that he had sufficient reason for not appearing before the trial Court -- Trail Court has correctly allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and set aside the ex-parte judgment.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Suit for permanent injunction -- Death of sole defendant -- Rejection of plaint -- Suit seeking permanent injunction against sole defendant for restraining him from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff or creating any hindrance or obstruction in the peaceful use and enjoyment for irrigation of the fields of the plaintiff from the tubewell/electric motor connection -- After the death of the sole defendant and the nature of the suit, the same cannot continue -- Application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed -- Plaintiff will be within his jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings against legal representatives of sole defendant in a case aggrieved in any manner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.04.2021

Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Adjourning of ad-interim prayer awaiting written statement – Defendants carrying out construction in full swing -- Challenge in revision -- Petition seems to have been filed prematurely and same is disposed of with an observation that any construction as alleged shall be at their sole risk and responsibility -- In case the pending application is decided against them, they shall be equally responsible to remove the construction, at their own cost and risk, subject of course to the final outcome of the civil suit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2021

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 21 – Execution of order -- Pendency of Appeal/Stay application – Appellate Court specifically observed regarding arguable points involved in appeal – Held, it would be appropriate if the stay application filed by the petitioners is decided by the first Appellate Court on the date fixed or within two weeks thereafter -- Till the decision of the stay application, learned executing Court requested to defer the proceedings for some future date.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Pleadings -- For the purpose of decision of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the pleadings in the plaint are to be seen and not their veracity or the truthfulness; as such.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.03.2021

Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Order 43 Rule 1(r), Section 151 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 7 Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- It is well settled that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are the averments in the plaint, only the averments in the plaint are germane -- Where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the Court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the Court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the Court has no other option except to reject the same – It can be exercised by the Trial Court at any stage of the suit -- It is also settled that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2021

Order 21 -- Rent laws -- Execution of eviction order – Appeal/ Stay application pending -- Executing Court declined to stay the execution, warrants of possession issued – It is in the interest of justice that the Appellate authority be directed to take a final decision upon the appeal filed by the petitioner; and till then eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question be stayed – Direction issued to Appellate Authority to decide appeal within 3 months, dispossession stayed till the decision of appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.03.2021

Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Constitution of India, Article 15(3), 51-A -- 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

Order 9 Rule 13 -- East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Ex-parte eviction -- Service of summons -- Service was not only effected by process server in person on the predecessor-in-interests of petitioners, but by way of munadi and affixation as well -- Munadi is known to be valid mean of substitute service in case despite service a litigant does not cause appearance before the Court – Objection taken is that there was an irregularity as the copy of petition was not served -- Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that it was well within the knowledge of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners that there was a case pending against her qua which service of summons was effected -- Even if it was not due complete service, but the fact that munadi was also effected, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to take refuge under the argument that it was a weak mode of evidence of service -- No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.03.2021

Order 18 Rule 17-A – Additional evidence -- Allowing of the application for leading evidence filed by the respondents by the learned trial Court will delay the finalization of the proceedings, but delay cannot have precedence over substantial justice to be done to the parties to the litigation – Petitioners held entitled for costs of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- as respondent/ plaintiff conceded to enhance the cost.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2021

Section 9 – Delay in decisioning of suit – Speedy disposal -- Suit was instituted in 2005, Court considered it appropriate to observe that the High Court may hear and dispose of Suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Sections 9, 96 – Consent decree -- Substantive suit to challenge the same – Appeal u/s 96 CPC as well -- Appellants not party to consent – Consent orders would consequently not have a binding effect on the Appellants -- High Court in appeal recorded a finding that since the Appellants were not a party to the proceedings, and the Order has been passed on the terms agreeable to the parties to the proceedings, it shall not be binding upon the Appellants, and their rights could be examined independently in the substantive suit filed at their instance – No interference called for.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Section 25 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VI Rule (1) -- Constitution of India, Article 142, 145 -- 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

Section 25 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Constitution of India, Article 142 – 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

Order 6 Rule 2 – Amendment in written statement -- Amendment sought is only explanatory -- As per the provisions of Order VI Rule 2 CPC, the pleading has to be based upon the facts in concise manner -- Amendment of pleadings for the purpose of explanation cannot be allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.02.2021

Section 9, 80 – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) -- Public premises -- Unauthorised possession – Notice under PP Act -- Civil suit with application for exemption u/s 80 CPC – Rejection of application – Adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to appear before the competent authority under the Act, 1971 but he failed to do so -- When he did put in appearance, he could not produce evidence to show that he was not in unauthorized possession -- Thereafter, he filed a civil suit, although he could not establish his rights in proceedings under the Act, 1971 -- Under the circumstances there was no urgency in the matter and the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Order 7, Rule 11 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111, 158 – Partition proceedings of land – Challenged in Civil suit -- Rejection of plaint -- Civil suit challenging partition proceedings on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice – Ld. trial Court is correct in observing that proceedings can always be le of natural justice -- Section 158 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in case a suit is filed for grant of relief, which can be provided by the Revenue Officers under the Act, 1887 – That is not the case in the suit -- Application dismissed by Trail court, order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Section 100, 103 -- Second appeal – Substantial question of law – Question of fact – Power of High Court -- Settled position of law that a second appeal, u/s 100 of the CPC, lies only on a substantial question of law -- However, this does not mean that the High Court cannot, in any circumstance, decide findings of fact or interfere with those arrived at by the Courts below in a second appeal -- In fact, Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly provides for circumstances under which the High Court may do so -- High Court to decide an issue of fact, provided there is sufficient evidence on record before it, in two circumstances. -- First, when an issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal has not been determined by the lower Appellate Court or by both the Courts below. -- And second, when an issue of fact has been wrongly determined by the Court(s) below by virtue of the decision on the question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(SC) Decided on: 17.02.2021

Section 100, 103 -- Second appeal – Substantial question of law – Question of fact – Power of High Court – Suit dismissed -- First Appellate Court reversed the finding and decreed the suit -- High Court allowed the second appeal dismissing the suit -- High Court, vide the impugned judgment, noted that the First Appellate Court had considered irrelevant material and had erred in appreciating the legal issue involved -- High Court did not note that the First Appellate Court, due to its erroneous approach, had failed to consider the evidence in the correct light – Held, in such a circumstance, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court to determine the factual issues in light of the legal point as decided by it, or should have itself taken a decision on the facts u/s 103 of the Civil Procedure Code -- Judgment of the High Court set aside, matter remanded back to High Court.

(SC) Decided on: 17.02.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Plaint alongwith documents forms part of plaint – Scope of -- Claim in a suit is based on an agreement executed through a Power of Attorney holder, the Court is not debarred from looking into the Power of Attorney -- It is open to the Court to read the terms of the Power of Attorney along with the plaint in the same manner as documents appended to the plaint, which form part of the plaint – No clause permitting the attorney to sell the property or to enter into any agreement to sell -- Therefore, the purported pre-emption agreement does not give any right to the plaintiff to file the suit -- The suit is thus not maintainable – High Court has done substantial justice by nipping in the bud, a suit which is ex facie not maintainable for want of cause of action against the defendants or any of them, thereby saving precious judicial time as also inconvenience and expenditure to the parties to the suit – SLP dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Scope of -- It is well settled that while considering an application, the question before the Court is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law, on the face of the averments contained in the plaint itself -- Court is not to look into the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiff or the defence raised by the defendant.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Scope of – It requires a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole – Clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint -- Similarly the Court must see that the bar in law of the suit is not camouflaged by devious and clever drafting of the plaint -- Provisions of Order VII Rue 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the Court.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Order 21 Rule 89, 90, 91, 92 -- Auction sale in execution of consent decree – Overruling of objection – Non-availing of remedy in time – Effect of -- As per Order XXI Rule 92, where an application is made under Order XXI Rule 89, Order XXI Rule 90 and Order XXI Rule 91 and the same is disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale and thereafter the sale shall become absolute -- As per Order XXI Rule 94, where a sale of immovable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser -- Such certificate shall bear the date on which the sale became absolute -- High Court ought not to have thereafter set aside the order dated 03.03.1998 overruling the objections raised by the judgment debtors, which order was not challenged by the judgment debtors before the High Court till the year 2000 – Impugned judgment cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Order 21 Rule 90 – Auction sale in execution of consent decree – Setting aside of -- JD did not deposit the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- i.e. sale consideration together with interest in terms of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC -- Not the case of the JD that there was any material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale -- Objection is that the decree was obtained by fraud -- Application submitted by the original judgment debtors under Order XXI Rule 90 was required to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed by the learned Executing Court.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Order 21 Rule 90 – Auction sale in execution of consent decree – Setting aside of -- High Court hold auction purchaser cannot be said to be the bona fide purchaser as he was related to the judgment creditor and that he was a partner of the firm in whose favour the mortgage was executed – However, application for setting aside was not filed on above ground it was submitted on the ground that no proper publication was made to get the adequate market value -- Therefore, the High Court has gone beyond the case of the judgment debtors – Even on merit High Court is not correct in observing that the auction purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser -- Partnership firm was already dissolved much before and thereafter the plaintiff inherited the assets, claims and liabilities of the firm.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Section 25 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 212, 213, 250, 264, 273, 300 – Testamentary Succession -- Partition suit -- Will -- Probate of -- Transfer of suit -- Partition suit pending in District Court of Delhi is 8 years old -- Written statement was filed way back in November, 2012 – In reply petitioner has pleaded the execution of the disputed Will -- True copy of the Will is stated to have been annexed as D-1/5, to the written statement -- Obviously petitioner was convinced that there was no bar for him to establish his right as a legatee under the will, even without first obtaining letters of administration -- Legal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the partition suit should follow the testamentary case, is liable to be rejected in the facts and circumstances of this case -- Testamentary Case pending on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand is ordered to be transferred to the file of the High Court of Delhi – Partition suit shall stand transferred to the High Court of Delhi and clubbed along with the testamentary proceeding and taken up together for disposal -- Parties are at liberty to move applications for examination of the witnesses including the attesters of the Will, either through Video Conference or through Court appointed Commissioners and applications for such reliefs may be considered by the High Court favourably.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Section 96(3), Order 43 Rule 1A – Consent decree – Appeal against – Maintainability of -- As per Section 96(3), the appeal against the decree passed with the consent of the parties shall be barred -- Order XLIII Rule 1A provides that in an appeal against the decree passed in a suit for recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should or should not have been recorded -- High Court rightly come to the conclusion that the appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree was maintainable -- No error has been committed by the High Court in holding so.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Section 9 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Question of title – Jurisdiction of Revenue authorities -- Neither the authorities, constituted under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, nor the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act (while deciding the mutations), have the jurisdiction to decide on the question of title.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.01.2021

Section 9 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Question of title -- Mutation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities -- Finding of civil court – Effect of -- Revenue authorities, while deciding mutations, do not have jurisdiction to decide the question of right, title or interest of the parties -- Revenue authorities are bound to implement the order finally passed by the Civil Court -- Writ petition disposed of with the observations that whenever the Civil Court finally decides the suit, the revenue authorities would be bound to give effect thereto in the revenue record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.01.2021

Section 11 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- Shamilat deh – Res-judicata – Earlier plaintiff’s father petition was dismissed by Collector, affirmed by Division Bench of High Court -- Land in dispute is the same in the previous and subsequent litigation which came to be decided by the Division Bench -- Plaintiff as well as his witness admitted that the plaintiff's father also filed a similar suit in which he remained unsuccessful -- Keeping in view the principle of res judicata, the suit is a clear abuse of the process of the Court – Appeal dismissed in limini, with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.01.2021

Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement – Non-filing of -- Defence struck off -- Non-framing of issues – Effect of -- Since the issues have not been framed till date, this revision allowed and order set aside with direction to the trial Court to allow the petitioner to file his written statement after giving one more opportunity subject to deposit of Rs.15,000/- as costs.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.01.2021

Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 -- Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 53 – Embezzlement by Sarpanch – Recovery from Sarpanch -- It would be a matter of evidence whether the construction was done or not though payments had been withdrawn -- Interest of the petitioner can be protected to the extent that if the amount is deposited by him before the Trial Court, the said amount can be put in a fixed deposit receipt – Direction given that on deposit of said amount of Rs.6,61,370/- with the Trial Court, the same shall be kept in a fixed deposit receipt to earn the highest rate of interest during the pendency of the suit – Amount should be disbursed to the successful party at the end of the trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.12.2020

Section 9 -- Suit for correction of mother’s name in matriculation certificate -- Birth certificate as well as aadhar card and ration card of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 bears the name of his mother as 'Laxmi' – It is only in the examination form, forwarded by the school authorities to the appellant-Board, the name of mother has been mentioned as 'Raj' -- Not a case of fraud or ulterior purposes, it is an inadvertent mistake, which needs to be corrected so that the child does not suffer for life – Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, for the correction of name of his mother allowed and appeal of the appellant-Board was rejected – Held, concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below, needs no intervention.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Order 7 Rule 11 – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 1 -- Pleading that property was purchased in 2001 – Maintainability of suit – Rejection of plaint -- For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be taken into account -- There is no averment in the plaint, which shows that the construction was more than 10 years old with regard to the suit property so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court -- Application on presumption that as the suit property has been purchased in the year 2001, the construction must be 10 years old -- Court has to arrive at a definite conclusion that on the basis of the pleadings in the suit, the suit is not maintainable -- Interpretation of the averment in a particular manner is not permissible – High Court found no ground to interfere in dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Order 1 Rule 7 -- Suit for permanent injunction against Municipal Committee – Impleadment application by petitioner/ local resident declined – Held, plaintiff is the master of the suit -- Nobody can be imposed upon the plaintiff to contest the suit especially in case when no relief is being sought against a particular person/authority by the plaintiff -- No ground to interfere in the impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Section 151 – Temporary injunction against co-sharer -- Parties are in possession of their respective shares – Petitioner/ defendant is renovating his portion – Petitioner/defendant has given an undertaking that at a later stage, if it is found that construction/ renovation falls in the share of respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner will remove such renovated portion -- Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC dismissed -- However, the petitioner-defendant shall remain bound by the undertaking given before this Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

Order 13 Rule 4 -- Exhibition of documentation – Proof of -- Merely the admission in evidence and making exhibit of a document does not prove it automatically unless the same has been proved in accordance with the law.

(SC) Decided on: 13.05.2020

Order 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22(2) – Amendment of plaint – Refund of earnest money -- Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell -- Suit was at the stage of examination of defendant witnesses -- Trial Court allowed plaintiff to amend the plaint – Court do not find any manifest illegality in the order of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.02.2020

Order 14 Rule 5 -- Framing of additional issue – Application for -- Plaintiff sought declaration with regard to the Will being a forged and fabricated document and setting aside of the mutation effected in consequence thereto – Omission with regard to framing of an issue – Trail court allowed application and granted only one opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence – No manifest illegality in the impugned order which would warrant interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction – Revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.02.2020

Section 9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Civil suit – Handwriting expert report – F.I.R. w.r.t. forged receipts – Sustainability of -- Quashing of FIR -- Handwriting expert in civil suit has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2 -- It was only thereafter, FIR was registered -- In the Summary Suit, issue No.5 has been framed by the Court “whether the defendant proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created forged receipts” – Held, when the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit -- Based on the sole opinion of the handwriting expert, the FIR ought not to have been registered -- Continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Order 37 Rule 3 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Suit for recovery – Leave to defend – Condonation of delay -- Separate application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act may not have been absolutely necessary whether or not to condone the delay -- Once some reasoning was given in the application seeking leave to defend the suit, court was required to go into the grounds for delay, consider them and then pass a reasoned order accepting or rejecting the said reasons.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.01.2020

Order 26 Rule 9 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Demarcation of property – Opinion on encroachment – Permissibility of -- Local Commissioner should confine himself to only the demarcation of properties according to the revenue records without expressing any opinion on encroachment which is the judicial function to be performed by the trial court on the totality of evidence yet to be adduced by the parties -- He would only determine if there is any overlapping beyond the limits of land held by either of the parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2020

Section 100 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay of 312 days in filing appeal – Condonation of -- Submitted that there was construction going on in the office of the filing counsel and as such the file was erroneously misplaced and as such there has been a delay in filing of the present appeal -- Explanation for condoning 312 days delay not worthy of acceptance -- Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2020

Section 152 -- Amendment/ Rectification in judgment by Executing Court -- Error had crept in due to inadvertence of the trial court, for no fault of the decree-holder -- From the record, it is clear that the LRs were brought on record of the case by the trial court and the name of GS was deleted from the array of parties, and this fact was missed by the trial court while passing the decree -- In the circumstances, the order of the Executing Court is sustained in the interest of justice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.01.2020

Order 18 Rule 3 -- Rebuttal evidence – Trial court allowed application of plaintiff, whereby he sought permission to get photographs of the specimen signatures of the defendant, which are the disputed signatures and already on file – Held, onus of proving the issue was on the defendant, but the plaintiff did not reserve his right on leading evidence in rebuttal on the said issue and in fact closed his evidence without reserving such a right -- Impugned order set aside. Avtar Singh’s case 2015(1) Civil Court Cases 728 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.01.2020

Order 13, Rule 3, 6 – Exhibiting of documents – Non-objection of – Effect of -- Summons would not contain the particulars of the orders required to be summoned -- It is only from the file, the documents are put to the witness for the purpose of proving the case by either of the parties -- Exhibition of the documents was not objected to at the time of cross-examination -- Party cannot be prevented to take the objection to the aforementioned documents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2016

Order 21 Rule 66(2)(e), 3 – Proclamation for sale – Tenancy – Declaration of -- Sub rule (2) of Rule 66 cannot be read in isolation -- It must be read inter-alia with sub rule (3) of Rule 66 -- Proclamation ought to have specified fairly and accurately the tenancy in view of Order 21 Rule 66 (2) (e) which requires every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property to be specified -- Clause (e) is of the widest amplitude and everything which affects the value of the property must be specified/disclosed -- Value of a property with a sitting tenant can never be the same as its value without a tenant -- It is axiomatic, therefore, that clause (e) of Rule 66 (2) requires a proclamation to specify a tenancy in respect of a property to be sold in auction. v

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Section 154, 482 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Civil suit – Handwriting expert report – F.I.R. w.r.t. forged receipts – Sustainability of -- Quashing of FIR -- Handwriting expert in civil suit has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2 -- It was only thereafter, FIR was registered -- In the Summary Suit, issue No.5 has been framed by the Court “whether the defendant proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created forged receipts” – Held, when the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit -- Based on the sole opinion of the handwriting expert, the FIR ought not to have been registered -- Continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Acquisition of land by Improvement Trust – Auction sale -- Setting aside of – 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 – 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

Permanent disability – Attendant charges for whole life -- Appellant/ claimant mentally retarded/ IQ 58% and suffered 100% permanent disability in relation to whole body -- Attendant charges calculated on the basis of multiplier method -- Assuming the attendant charges at the nominal rate of Rs.4,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 18, it comes to Rs. 8,64,000/- (4000 X12 X 18).

(P&H HC) Reserved on 28.10.2022 Decided on: 09.11.2022

Pleadings of negligence – Insurance company while filing the written statement did not plead that deceased was not wearing the helmet -- Still further, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove this fact and also failed to raise this point before the Tribunal -- Still further, insurance company has failed to draw the attention of the Court to the cross examination of eye-witness on this aspect -- In such circumstances, the argument of insurance company do not deserve acceptance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Additional evidence -- Only reason pleaded in the application is that the award would cause wrongful loss to the appellant/insurance company -- Reason does not fulfill the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Plea of Collusion -- Insurance company has taken a stand that the claimants in collusion with the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have filed the claim petition, whereas on the other hand, now the insurance company wants to examine the driver – Ld. Tribunal had given sufficient opportunities to the driver and the owner as well as to the insurance company to lead their evidence but they failed to do so -- Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Pleading -- Manner of accident disputed – Counsel failed to draw the attention of the Court to such defence in the written statement and any discussion before the Tribunal on this aspect -- Driver of the offending vehicle did not appear in evidence, who could have deposed about the manner in which the accident took place -- Counsel also failed to draw attention of the Court to the cross examination of PW2, eye-witness on this aspect – Court expresses inability to accept the argument.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

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

Maintainability of Execution proceedings – Withdrawal of suit – 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

Compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and is thus a legal settlement.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Execution of decretal amount – Show cause notice was issued and, the petitioners were both served and petitioner No.1 appeared and sought time to make payment and thereafter, stopped appearing – In case the payment is made as per the calculation sheet, then the Judgment Debtor/petitioner No.2 is not to be arrested and it is only in case the payment is not made that he has to be arrested and produced before the Court -- Thus, the procedure adopted by the Executing Court for the issuance of conditional warrant of arrest is absolutely legal and in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Suit for recovery – Leave to defend – Separate application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act may not have been absolutely necessary whether or not to condone the delay -- Once some reasoning was given in the application seeking leave to defend the suit, court was required to go into the grounds for delay, consider them and then pass a reasoned order accepting or rejecting the said reasons.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.01.2020

Appellants not party to consent – Consent orders would consequently not have a binding effect on the Appellants -- Their rights could be examined independently in the substantive suit filed at their instance.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Maintainability of Appeal -- Order XLIII Rule 1A CPC provides that in an appeal against the decree passed in a suit for recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should or should not have been recorded -- Appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree was maintainable.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the year 1996 -- Wakf Board and the appellant filed an application for transfer of the suit to the Wakf Tribunal – Though the Wakf Tribunal could not grant declaration as claimed by the plaintiff, but such objection cannot be permitted to be raised either by the Wakf Board or by the appellant as the order was passed by the Civil Court at their instance and was also upheld by the High Court -- Such order has thus attained finality inter-parties -- Parties cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate in the same breath.

(SC) Decided on: 05.04.2021

Rejection of plaint – Suit for custody of child -- Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

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 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

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 -- 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 -- 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 -- 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 -- 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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

Permissibility of -- Once the court comes to a conclusion that the clerical or arithmetic mistake has crept in due to any accidental slip or omission, the same can be permitted to be corrected not only in the pleadings but also in the evidence as well as in the judgment and the decree passed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.07.2021

Plaint was termed as being one for declaration and mandatory injunction, however, in effect what is sought is recovery of the excess amount alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff-petitioner -- Substantial relief claimed in the suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,25,57,341/- charged in excess -- Plaintiff simply by playing around the words cannot avoid payment of Court fees.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.02.2021

Section 7 (i) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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

Section 7 – Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction – Consequential/ Substantive relief is for refund of excess amount charged/ Recovery suit -- Court fees -- Plaint was termed as being one for declaration and mandatory injunction, however, in effect what is sought is recovery of the excess amount alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff-petitioner -- Substantial relief claimed in the suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,25,57,341/- charged in excess -- Plaintiff simply by playing around the words cannot avoid payment of Court fees.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.02.2021

Suit for permanent injunction -- After the death of the sole defendant and the nature of the suit, the same cannot continue -- Application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.04.2021

Proclamation for sale – Sub rule (2) of Rule 66 CPC cannot be read in isolation -- It must be read inter-alia with sub rule (3) of Rule 66 -- Proclamation ought to have specified fairly and accurately the tenancy in view of Order 21 Rule 66 (2) (e) which requires every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property to be specified -- Clause (e) is of the widest amplitude and everything which affects the value of the property must be specified/disclosed -- Value of a property with a sitting tenant can never be the same as its value without a tenant -- It is axiomatic, therefore, that clause (e) of Rule 66 (2) requires a proclamation to specify a tenancy in respect of a property to be sold in auction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Written statement not filed within 90 days – Inherent power of Civil Court -- Trial court allowed the application without recalling the earlier order vide which defence of the defendant was struck off for non-payment of costs of Rs.500/-, as well as, having not filed the written statement within the permissible period of 90 days – Held, Trial court is vested with inherent powers u/s Section 151 CPC to correct any mistake and/or recall its own order in the interest of justice, at a later stage, if the circumstances are made out.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2021

Non-filing of Written statement – Non-framing of issues – Effect of -- Since the issues have not been framed till date, this revision allowed and order set aside with direction to the trial Court to allow the petitioner to file his written statement after giving one more opportunity subject to deposit of Rs.15,000/- as costs.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.01.2021

Judgment on admission – Power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC – Power cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Additional issue -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- Provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 21.10.2022 Decided on: 31.10.2022

Suit for specific performance – Amendment of plaint -- Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Order 14 Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 25 -- Additional issue – Disputing Landlord’ ownership -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Said orders have attained finality – No occasion for the tenants to agitate the issue again before High Court – It is an abuse of the process of law – Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- It cannot by any stretch of imagination, therefore, be said that the Controller has “omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact” -- Therefore, provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable – Held, tenants could not invoke by filing the application, beseeching the Appellate Authority to frame additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord and refer the same to the Rent Controller for recording evidence thereupon -- Nor could the tenant file the other application Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing of issues -- Revision dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 21.10.2022 Decided on: 31.10.2022

Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 – Eviction of tenant -- Personal necessity – Resjudicata -- Previous petition was for seeking eviction on account of the personal necessity qua the son of the petitioner, whereas in the present petition, which is filed after 07 years, personal necessity is pleaded on account of the fact that the petitioner himself has retired and has already shifted to Mohali for which he requires his house – Petitioner-tenant failed to prove that the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata -- Eviction order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2022

Mesne profit – High Court has considered the fair rate of return @ 6.5% annually on the amount of Rs. 5.50 crores for which the appellant purchased the property in the year 2008, determining the monthly compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- – Aforesaid method cannot be accepted, High Court was required to undertake exercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises – Matter remitted back to High court.

(SC) Decided on: 09.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Non-objection of – Effect of -- Summons would not contain the particulars of the orders required to be summoned -- It is only from the file, the documents are put to the witness for the purpose of proving the case by either of the parties -- Exhibition of the documents was not objected to at the time of cross-examination -- Party cannot be prevented to take the objection to the aforementioned documents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2016

Section 25 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Section 28, 38 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Suit for custody of child -- Rejection of plaint – Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Previously divorce by mutual consent between the parties – Voluntarily statement of father for giving the custody of the child to the mother -- Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

F.I.R. w.r.t. forged receipts – Quashing of FIR -- Handwriting expert in civil suit has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2 -- It was only thereafter, FIR was registered -- Continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Section 1 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Pleading that property was purchased in 2001 – Maintainability of suit – Rejection of plaint -- For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be taken into account -- There is no averment in the plaint, which shows that the construction was more than 10 years old with regard to the suit property so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court -- Application on presumption that as the suit property has been purchased in the year 2001, the construction must be 10 years old -- Court has to arrive at a definite conclusion that on the basis of the pleadings in the suit, the suit is not maintainable -- Interpretation of the averment in a particular manner is not permissible – High Court found no ground to interfere in dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Transfer of Divorce petition -- Kapurthala to Fazilka -- It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses – Case transferred.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 6 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Section 28, 38 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Suit for custody of child -- Rejection of plaint – Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Previously divorce by mutual consent between the parties – Voluntarily statement of father for giving the custody of the child to the mother -- Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Maintainability of suit -- Relief of injunction simplicitor cannot be sought by a person whose title over the property is in dispute -- Plaintiffs’ title over the suit property was not in dispute, though the defendants made a deplorable attempt to dispute the same by concealing relevant facts from the Court – Therefore, the defendants cannot raise any plea.

(P&H HC) Reserved on 29.10.2022 Decided on: 04.11.2022

Attachment before judgment – Arbitration matter -- Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act -- A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Stage of suit – Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC – To pass a judgment on admission, the Court if thinks fit may pass an order at any stage of the suit.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Object and the purport of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC -- Provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for full-fledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence -- Therefore, to save the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Discretion of court – Power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC – Power cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

SARFAAESI proceedings – Lessee rights -- Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2022

Section 18 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 54, 64, 66, 89, 90 -- Constitution of India, Article 300A -- 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

SARFAAESI proceedings – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2022

Eviction of lessee -- High Court has considered the fair rate of return @ 6.5% annually on the amount of Rs. 5.50 crores for which the appellant purchased the property in the year 2008, determining the monthly compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- – Aforesaid method cannot be accepted, High Court was required to undertake exercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises – Matter remitted back to High court.

(SC) Decided on: 09.11.2022

There is no provision for assessment of mesne profits in a suit for possession without an enquiry in terms of the Order XX Rule 12 of CPC -- No such enquiry has either been conducted by trial Court – Held, no justification for the lower appellate Court to fix the mesne profits and direct the petitioner to pay the amount along with arrears.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 14.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Suit property was never rented out to the petitioner, nor had its rent been assessed -- Therefore, the concept of depriving the landlord of rent during pendency of appeal does not apply -- Respondent cannot claim mesne profits based upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 212.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 14.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 60(1)(i), Order 21 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 55 Order 21 Rule 30 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 – Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 138 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal in criminal case – Civil liability to pay -- Claim of the plaintiff was not based on dishonour of the cheques -- It was based on the basis of transaction of supply of poultry feed to the company and the bills raised therefore -- Merely, because defendant has been acquitted in criminal proceeding that does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff in civil proceedings ipso facto stand disproved.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Effect of -- Summons would not contain the particulars of the orders required to be summoned -- It is only from the file, the documents are put to the witness for the purpose of proving the case by either of the parties -- Exhibition of the documents was not objected to at the time of cross-examination -- Party cannot be prevented to take the objection to the aforementioned documents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2016

Provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for full-fledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence -- Therefore, to save the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Declaration of Tenancy – Sub rule (2) of Rule 66 CPC cannot be read in isolation -- It must be read inter-alia with sub rule (3) of Rule 66 -- Proclamation ought to have specified fairly and accurately the tenancy in view of Order 21 Rule 66 (2) (e) which requires every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property to be specified -- Clause (e) is of the widest amplitude and everything which affects the value of the property must be specified/disclosed -- Value of a property with a sitting tenant can never be the same as its value without a tenant -- It is axiomatic, therefore, that clause (e) of Rule 66 (2) requires a proclamation to specify a tenancy in respect of a property to be sold in auction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Section 20 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- 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

F.I.R. w.r.t. forged receipts – Handwriting expert report – Handwriting expert in civil suit has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2 -- It was only thereafter, FIR was registered -- Continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Jurisdiction of civil Court – Question of law is whether in view of Section 102 read with Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred? – Prayer is to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to hand over the complete documents with a consequential relief of declaration that conveyance deed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 is illegal and liable to be set aside. Though the trial Court allowed the application, however, the lower appellate Court recorded a finding that since in the civil suit, there is pleading of fraud with regard to execution of the conveyance deed, on the basis of certain documents, which were prepared by the defendants in collusion with each other, therefore, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction and the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The lower appellate Court also recorded a finding that Section 102 read with Sections 128 & 130 of the Act deals with reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator and regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Courts, however, nothing is stated under Section 128 of the Act that jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be barred, if a suit is filed on the basis of fraud. At the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is primarily to see the pleadings in the plaint or the documents attached with the plaint -- In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that conveyance deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.2 by playing fraud -- Therefore, question of law decided in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff -- No illegality or infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 20.09.2022

SARFAAESI proceedings – Lessee rights -- Jurisdiction of civil Court – Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2022

Suit for custody of child -- Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Partition proceedings of land – Civil suit -- Civil suit challenging partition proceedings on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice – Ld. trial Court is correct in observing that proceedings can always be challenged in case violation of principle of natural justice -- Section 158 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in case a suit is filed for grant of relief, which can be provided by the Revenue Officers under the Act, 1887 – That is not the case in the suit -- Application dismissed by Trail court, order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Rent laws -- Personal necessity -- Previous petition was for seeking eviction on account of the personal necessity qua the son of the petitioner, whereas in the present petition, which is filed after 07 years, personal necessity is pleaded on account of the fact that the petitioner himself has retired and has already shifted to Mohali for which he requires his house – Petitioner-tenant failed to prove that the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata -- Eviction order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2022

Arbitration matter -- Essar House Private directed to deposit an amount of Rs.35.5 crores with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court or, in the alternative, to furnish bank guarantee of any nationalised bank for the entire amount along with interest thereon – Prima facie, the refundable security deposit is not being released to Arcellor on the purported ground of a convoluted series of internal arrangements between group companies for diversion of the security deposits towards liquidation of alleged dues of Essar Steel to third parties -- No infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment and order of the Division Bench -- Appeals dismissed.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Section 17(4A), 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order VII Rule 11 – SARFAAESI proceedings – Lessee rights -- Rejection of plaint – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Once there is a specific amendment enabling the persons claiming tenancy or lease hold rights to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Civil Court has erred in rejecting the application -- Even the period of lease has already expired -- Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2022

Section 28, 38 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Suit for custody of child -- Rejection of plaint – Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Previously divorce by mutual consent between the parties – Voluntarily statement of father for giving the custody of the child to the mother -- Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Section 36, 37 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Injunction simplicitor – Maintainability of -- Ratio of the judgment passed in Anathula Sudhakar’s case, Civil Appeal No.6191 of 2001, dated 25.03.2008 passed by the Supreme Court is that the relief of injunction simplicitor cannot be sought by a person whose title over the property is in dispute -- Plaintiffs’ title over the suit property was not in dispute, though the defendants made a deplorable attempt to dispute the same by concealing relevant facts from the Court – Therefore, the defendants cannot raise any plea based upon the judgment.

(P&H HC) Reserved on 29.10.2022 Decided on: 04.11.2022

Withdrawal of statement -- Once a statement has been made on solemn affirmation, it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Plaintiffs are the domius litis -- Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs.

(SC) Decided on : 16.09.2022

Doctrine of lis pendens – Effect of -- Suit for specific performance – No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Rejection of plaint – Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – Amendment of plaint -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Effect of -- No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Kapurthala to Fazilka -- Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses – Case transferred.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 52 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 – Suit for specific performance – Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – Amendment of plaint -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Effect of -- No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Merely because the trial Court has not proceeded to pass any order or give any judgment having regard to the admission made, it affords no right to the party concerned to withdraw the admission.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Statement of admission -- Once a statement has been made on solemn affirmation, it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022