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

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, 151, Order 41 Rule 27 –  Rent appeal – Application for additional evidence – Pendency of -- Appellate Authority has to consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and decide the same either while passing the main judgment or by virtue of a separate order of even date at the time of deciding the appeal, which has not been done -- Judgment of the Appellate Authority set aside, case remanded back to the Appellate Authority.

(Para 4)

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

(Para 1-3)

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

(Para 1, 2)

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

(Para 6, 7)

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

(Para 1-4)

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

(Para 5, 6)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15(5) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Eviction petition -- Amendment of written statement -- Case was at the stage of tenants’ evidence, when the application for amendment of written statement was moved – Tenant stated that he had recently come to know about another double storey commercial building to be belonging to the landlords – Held, in case, the tenant finds that landlord has any other property in his occupation, he can produce necessary evidence in this regard, for that purpose, amendment of the written statement is not required – Amendment declined.

(Para 5-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 – Expeditious disposal of execution petition -- Warrants of possession not executed -- Despite the Decree Holder (DH) being present, none came for execution of the warrants of possession -- Objections filed by the judgment debtor dismissed, however, second objections have been filed – Revision petition disposed off with a request to the Executing Court not to grant any unnecessary adjournments and to decide the execution application pending before it expeditiously and in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 3)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15(5) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Eviction petition -- Discovery of documents -- A party cannot be compelled to produce the document if he/ she/ they were to contend that the original document was not in their custody -- Rent Controller rightly observed that an “appropriate inference would be drawn at appropriate stage for non-production of original documents” -- Said observation is in accordance with law.

(Para 6)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 -- Execution of Decree -- Judgment debtor/ Society placed on record the evidence in the form of allotment letters, revealing that allotment was made in the name of five persons as mentioned in para No.2 of the affidavit as desired by the decree-holder -- Petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate -- She is estopped so as to make any claim regarding non allotment of plots -- This claim rightly rejected by the Executing Court.

(Para 16-18)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 -- Execution of Decree -- Petitioner-decree holder contends that the Society was bound to allot two plots as per the compromise -- No such claim was made by the decree holder in the execution, which has filed in 2009 -- Executing court was not in seisin of the matter regarding the non-allotment of the plots as per the compromise -- No allegation on the part of the decree holder regarding the non-allotment of plots – Executing Court rejected the claim – No reason to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the Executing Court, revision dismissed.

(Para 19)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Divorce petition – Transfer of -- Weightage ought to be given to the convenience of the wife in the transfer applications, relating to the matrimonial dispute -- Parents of respondent-husband can look after the children – Custody petition filed by wife, petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and the petition u/s 12 of the DV Act are pending in the Courts at Gohana and the complaint for registration of FIR u/s 498-A IPC is pending with the police authorities, Gohana – Divorce petition transferred from Meham to Gohana.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Recovery suit – Bahi khatta entries -- Only reliance of the plaintiff-appellant was on the bahi khatta entries -- Defendant-respondent had denied the bahi khatta entries and hence the onus lay on the plaintiff-appellant to prove the signatures in the bahi khatta entries -- Neither the details of the cheques nor the account number/ account statement was produced by the plaintiff-appellant -- It was incumbent upon the plaintiff-appellant to prove his case by leading affirmative evidence -- Onus to prove that the loan was taken by the defendant-respondent lay heavily on the plaintiff-appellant who failed to discharge the same – Suit dismissed.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Suit of year 2014 – Early decision of case – Petition to issue a direction to Court to decide Original Suit within a stipulated time – Direction issued to Civil Judge (Senior Division) to decide the suit in accordance with law, if possible within a period of nine months after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

(Para 2-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 6A-6G, Section 11, 96, 100 – Civil suit -- Counter claim – Res-judicata -- Maintainability of one appeal -- Ld. trial Court decided Civil Suit, as well as, counter-claim, whereas, the appellant/ defendants had filed only one appeal, which had been dismissed, by the learned First Appellate Court --  Non-filing of the appeal, against the counter-claim, not only amounts to res judicata, but, also waiver and estoppel -- Second appeal is held to be not maintainable.

(Para 22-25)

A. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Landlord -- Tenant -- Gair marusi tenant -- Merely because appellant is recorded as ‘Gair Maurusi’ in the revenue record, does not mean that he is a tenant over the suit property – There can be no tenancy unless there is a condition of payment of rent, though the rent may be payable in cash, kind or service etc. -- Held, it is inconceivable that there can be any tenancy without the condition of payment of rent, unless there is a contract to the contrary, absolving the tenant the liability to pay rent.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Gair marusi tenant – Trespasser -- Adverse possession -- A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take contrary stands to suit his convenience -- When in the earlier two litigations, it was ordered by the courts that appellant could be dispossessed in due course of law, he changed the stand in next litigations taking contrary plea that he had become owner of suit property by adverse possession -- In none of the earlier litigations decided earlier, he has been held to be tenant in the suit land, though his plea of possession has been upheld with further direction that he cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law – No evidence that tenancy was ever created and as such, his possession over the suit land is nothing less than that of a stranger / trespasser.

(Para 19)

C. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 9 --  Tenant of land – Eviction -- Jurisdiction of civil court --  When the person is inducted as a tenant on payment of rent and the rent is not paid --  Civil Court will not have jurisdiction and the landlord will have to seek his remedy before the Revenue Authorities to seek ejectment of such tenant or a tenant holding over, under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 to be read with the provisions Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act.

(Para 22)

D. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 9 --  Gair marusi tenant – Suit for possession – Jurisdiction of civil court --  When the possession of person concerned on the suit land is without payment of rent, such as person is no more than a stranger or trespasser over the suit property -- In such a situation, his possession, howsoever long it may be, cannot be considered in the capacity of tenant in view of the definition of ‘landlord’, ‘tenant’ and ‘rent’ -- In this eventuality, it is only the Civil Court, which will have the jurisdiction to pass the decree of possession in favour of the landlord – Suit for possession decreed.

(Para 22, 23)

Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (16 of 2021), Section 21, 38(1) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Rent laws -- Suit for injunction by tenant against landlord – Maintainability of -- Section 21 does not contain any provision enabling a tenant to file an application for protection against apprehended eviction otherwise than in accordance with the law -- Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits for injunction filed by tenants against their landlords, is not barred -- Civil Court continues to have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for injunction even after enactment of the Act of 2021.

(Para 9, 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 21, Section 11 -- Rejection of plaint -- Decree for specific performance -- Maintainability of independent suit by person claiming to be in possession – Limitation -- If the Plaintiff claim to be in possession of the suit land, she could have filed the objections under Order 21 CPC before the Executing Court in the execution filed by the decree holder -- In fact, plaintiff filed the objections before the Executing Court and the same were dismissed by the Executing Court – Sale deed was executed in September, 1995, whereas the suit filed for seeking declaration and mandatory injunction in July, 2014 -- Plaint is liable to be rejected on account of concealment of material facts about previous litigation and resjudicata and bar of limitation -- Independent suit was not maintainable in view of Order 21 CPC -- Order of Trial Court rejecting the paint restored.

(Para 29, 38-41)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 158(2) -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Suit for mandatory Injunction to nullify the breaking up of original Khewat into three Khewat and restore the original Khewat – Prayer essentially attracts the provisions of Section 158(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred -- It is cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in a manner prescribed and not in any other way -- Learned first appellate Court was justified in nonsuiting the plaintiff on the issue of maintainability of the suit, being barred under the provisions of the Act.

(Para 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 – Written statement beyond 120 days – Defence struck off -- Suit for recovery -- Period of 120 days elapsed on 07.03.2024, whereas the written statement filed on 02.07.2024 – Prior to the filing of the written statement, the respondents/plaintiffs had filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC read with Section VIII Rule 10 CPC for striking off the defence of petitioners/ defendants, when notice was issued to the petitioners/ defendants, the written statement filed – Held, it was not open to the trial Court to permit  filing of the written statement beyond the period of 120 days -- Impugned order rejecting/ discarding the said written statement is in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 8 Rule 1, 10 – Written statement beyond 120 days – Defence Struck off -- Pendency of application for rejection of plaint – Ground of -- Contention that period during which the petitioners were pursuing the said application be excluded for counting the period of 120 days for filing written statement cannot be accepted.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) -- Additional evidence in  Rebuttal -- The fact concerning which, additional evidence being sought to be led, was already pleaded in the plaint -- In fact, it was the foundational fact -- Plaintiffs were required to lead evidence in affirmative on the facts pleaded in the plaint -- They cannot be allowed to lead such evidence in rebuttal -- Application dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9, Section 151 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Suit for declaration -- No allegation in the plaint that defendants had encroached the suit land -- Suit itself was for declaration simplicitor that plaintiff had become owner of some portion of suit land by adverse possession & remaining portion of suit land by purchase -- It was for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading cogent evidence -- Plaintiff cannot be permitted to involve the Court in an exercise to hunt for evidence – Application dismissed.

(Para 1, 5)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41, Order 42 Rule 1 – Appeal against appellate decree – Procedure -- Order XLI of the Code would apply to the appeals from the appellate decrees also, as contemplated in Rule-1, Order XLII of the said Code.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 25, 27 – Appeal – Procedure -- Appellate Court cannot create a new case for the party, frame the issues and decide the issues without following the procedure contemplated under Order XLI of CPC.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 – Appeal – Pleadings – It is well-settled principle of law that the Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of the parties, and the appellate court is supposed to decide the issues involved in the suit based on the pleadings of the parties.

(Para 14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27, Section 100 – Application for additional evidence – Decision upon – Mandate of -- When an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is moved during pendency of the appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate Court to consider the same at the hearing of the appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents for evidence proposed to be adduced have any relevance/ bearing on the issues involved or not -- Appellate Court directed to dispose of the application in accordance with law and then decide the appeal accordingly.

(Para 9, 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Section 145, 146 – Issue of possession – Decree of civil court – Effect of -- Proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. pertain to the factum of possession of a party and not the right to possess which is to be determined by the Civil Court -- Once the factum of possession and right to possess both have been adjudicated upon by the appropriate Civil Court, the question of initiation of proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. does not arise.

(Para 12, 13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint -- Petitioner initially filed a suit for mandatory injunction, however, reserved her right to seek recovery of the amount through separate legal proceedings -- Subsequently, the petitioner sought amendment of the plaint -- Foundational facts for recovery of amount have already established in the plaint, therefore, the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court that amendment would change the nature of the suit, is untenable – Order of the trial Court set aside and the application for amendment allowed.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Constitution of  India, Article 226 -- Custody of children -- Writ of habeas corpus – Maintainability of -- Effort to secure temporary custody of the children through a Writ of Habeas Corpus, especially when both the children are girls and are living with their mother, can neither be entertained nor appreciated.

(Para 1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 13(f) -- Custody of children – Order of Foreign court – Compliance of -- Compliance to an order claimed to have obtained from the District Court, Family Court Division, State of Minnesota, U.S.A -- A foreign judgment violative of Indian law is not conclusive between the parties and thus, Indian Courts are not bound to follow it -- This principle is also statutorily recognized by Section 13(f) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Hence, the aforesaid order is not binding on the respondents or the children.

(Para 3)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 – Recovery suit -- Attachment of property before judgment -- Provision contained in Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is an extraordinary provision and a drastic one -- It is not the provision to be adopted as a matter of course --  Provision has to be invoked with utmost caution and circumspection -- It has to be invoked only when there is cogent material on record for the Court to believe possible mischief at the hands of defendant with an intent to defeat or to obstruct the execution of decree yet to passed.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 – Recovery suit -- Attachment of property before judgment – Substitution with another property -- Trial Court after being satisfied with the evaluation of the property allowed the substitution – Evaluation of which is sufficient to secure the interest of the plaintiff – No reason to interfere – Revision dismissed.

(Para 11, 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction – Interference in appeal – Permissibility of -- Relief of injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief, based on well-established principles of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience -- At the same time, once discretion is exercised by the trial judge of the first instance, the interference by the Appellate Court is not justified, unless the exercise is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, perverse or ignoring the settled principles of law.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20A -- Temporary injunction – Stalling Infrastructure project – Permissibility of – A person, who seeks equity must do equity -- Defendant No.2 after paying huge consideration has purchased the suit land from the two brothers i.e. plaintiff & defendant and their sister -- Ultimately after trial, if it is found that plaintiff was entitled to the entire suit land, he would be entitled to the proportionate sale consideration, but for that reason, the infrastructure project worth Rs.100 crore cannot be stalled -- No prohibitory injunction can be granted involving such a project as per Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act – Application for temporary injunction dismissed.

(Para 17-19)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Fraud – Pleading – Proof of -- Fraud when pleaded has to be pleaded with all the details and has to be proved beyond guilt -- Mere bald assertion made by the plaintiffs that the sale deed was result of fraud shorn of any particulars will not help the cause of the plaintiffs -- In order to make out a case of fraud an express allegation of fraud and all material facts in support of such allegations need to be pleaded with high degree of precision.

(Para 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Cause of action -- At the time of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments of plaint are required to be considered, and no other material -- Averment made by the defendant in the written statement cannot be considered -- Cause of action to file the suit involves evidence, as the issue is a mixed question of fact and law – Trial Court dismissed the application -- No ground warranting any intervention.

(Para 9-11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, 3, 4 – Ex-parte interim injunction – Remedy for defendant – Maintainability of appeal -- Since the interim injunction granted by the learned trial court is ex-parte, the defendant-appellant has a remedy to file application for vacating / recalling of ex-parte injunction order under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C – Appeal on behalf of defendant-appellant not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

(Para 11, 12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Right to challenge – Compliance of impugned order passed in writ – Effect of -- Judgment sought to be challenged in the Writ Appeal was already complied with under threat of contempt – Held, compliance of an order under threat cannot take away the right of a party as available to challenge the same.

(Para 14, 15)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Landlady wants to convert the entire ground floor into a big hall so as to open a showroom -- Tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to what should be his/ her necessity -- Neither the tenant can object in this regard nor the Court can direct the landlady to go as per the suggestions of the tenant.

(Para 5)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Landlord residing abroad -- Merely because during the pendency of proceedings, the landlady is residing outside, cannot be a ground to reject the petition -- As soon as the property is vacated, she intends to do her business by converting the ground floor into a big hall and to open a showroom and the said contention of landlady cannot be disbelieved.

(Para 6)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Resjudicata -- Earlier petition filed for bona fide requirement by the husband of the petitioner was dismissed -- However, present petition has been filed by the landlady after the death of her husband and therefore, in case she wants the demised shop for starting her business by opening a showroom by converting the entire ground-floor into a hall, for her livelihood, a fresh cause of action has arisen in favour of the landlady.

(Para 7)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Presumption -- Landlord, who establishes his prima facie case regarding his necessity, the Court is entitled to raise a presumption in his favour to the effect that the necessity is bona fide -- Onus then shifts upon the tenant to show that the plea of landlord is not bona fide.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 3, Order 7 Rule 11 -- Suit against dead person – Maintainability of – Rejection of plaint -- Suit against deceased dismissed with liberty to institute a fresh suit in accordance with law against the LRs.

(Para 6)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Divorce -- Adultery -- Adulterer as party – Requirement of -- Rejection of plaint -- Alleged adulterer is not a necessary party as a decree can be passed in his/ her absence -- Likewise, the adulterer is not a proper party since the issue concerning adultery can be adjudicated without making the adulterer a party to the cause -- Proof of adultery need not be conflated with who should be arrayed as a party to a divorce action – Application for rejection plaint dismissed.

(Para 2, 11, 11.1, 17)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Divorce petition -- Rejection of plaint – Petition cannot be rejected in a piecemeal manner upon an application being moved under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

(Para 11, 15)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 4 – Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), Section 25 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 -- Termination of lease – Suit for eviction, and recovery of rent and damages for use and occupation -- Ex-parte proceedings -- In ex-parte proceedings the Court is required to test the case of the plaintiff and not merely believe whatever has been stated in the plaint.

-- Impugned order records that the Defendants/Revisionists had filed written statement however, at the stage of evidence did not file any evidence in support of his written statement or in rebuttal of the plaint nor examined the plaintiff witnesses.

-- Defendants/ Revisionists also did not appear at the time of arguments and the case in such circumstances proceeded ex-parte against the Defendants/ Revisionists.

– Plaintiff/ Respondent filed the certified copy of the registered Lease Agreement executed between the parties.

-- Notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, Postal receipts showing service of the Notice upon the Defendants/ Revisionists, photocopies of the cheques along with the Bank return memos showing insufficient funds in the Bank account of the Defendants/ Revisionists.

Evidence of the Plaintiff/ Respondent stood unrebutted -- Taking note of the above in the absence of any contest from the Defendants/ Revisionists learned Judge Small Causes Court proceeded to decree the suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent -- No illegality in the procedure adopted by the learned Judge Small Causes Court in decreeing the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent -- Findings recorded by the learned JSCC calls for no interference.

(Para 25-28, 39-41)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 63(2)(3), 65, 74 -- Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 57 -- Certified copy of registered lease deed – Admissibility in evidence –  Certified copy of the Lease Agreement will fall under the category of secondary evidence – Certified copy of the Lease Agreement is a Public Document, as contemplated u/s 74 and in terms of the 3rd Proviso to Section 65(e) or 65(f) the certified copy is admissible in evidence -- Sub Section 5 of Section 57 of the Registration Act provides that certified copy given u/s 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document -- Rightly relied while decreeing the Suit.

(Para 29-34)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 90 -- NRI Landlord – Ownership – Proof of – Additional evidence – 30 year old sale deed – Presumption -- Registered sale deed of 1937 produced from proper custody and being more than 30 years old document carries presumption in terms of Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act and its veracity cannot be impeached at the hands of tenant – Application to lead additional evidence in the shape of sale deed allowed – Matter remanded back to Rent Controller with liberty to tenant for rebuttal if any.

(Para 9-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- First Appeal – Stay of decree – Right of -- Suit for specific performance decreed – Appeal was filed, but no order relating to the stay was granted and after about a period of 11 months, the application was dismissed -- The Court, ought to take into consideration that it is the statutory right exercised by the petitioner-defendant, by filing appeal -- Creation of third party rights, may lead to multiplicity of litigation – Revision allowed, impugned order set aside -- Operation of the judgment and decree stayed, till the decision of First Appeal.

(Para 7-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Suit for specific performance – Impleadment as defendant -- Rights or interest of petitioners to the extent of their shares in suit land, are neither the subject matter of suit nor of the agreement to sell – Petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit --  Petitioner cannot claim to be impleaded as party in the suit, where no relief is claimed against them – Law is settled that any decree against a stranger is nullity, therefore, any decree passed in the suit will have no effect on the rights of the petitioners.

(Para 7, 12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 14 Rule 5 – Additional issues – Suit for possession by way of partition – During the proceedings, defendant moved an application for framing of an additional issue for raising the objection of partial partition – In the written statement preliminary objection No.4 has been taken stating therein that the partition is partial as plaintiff has not mentioned Khasra in which the plaintiff had raised construction of the residential house – Only because the word “partial” has been clerically mentioned as “parcel”, the trial Court has observed that no such objection was raised – Direction given to the trial Court to frame additional issue regarding the partial partition.

(Para 2, 3)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Res-judicata -- General policy behind the principle of res judicata as enshrined u/s 11 CPC is to avoid parties to litigate on the same issue which has already been adjudicated upon and settled -- This is in consonance with the public policy so as to bring to an end the conflict of interest on the same issue between the same parties -- One of the basic essential ingredients for applying the principle of res judicata, is that the matter which is directly and substantially in issue in the previous litigation ought not to be permitted to be raised and adjudicated upon in the subsequent suit.

(Para 23)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Res-judicata between co-defendants -- Principle of res judicata is applicable not only between the plaintiff and the defendants but also between the co-defendants -- In applying the principle of res judicata between the co-defendants, primarily three conditions are necessary to be fulfilled, namely, (i) there must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants; (ii) there is necessity to decide the said conflict in order to give relief to plaintiff; and (iii) there is final decision adjudicating the said conflict -- Once all these conditions are satisfied, the principle of res judicata can be applied inter se the co-defendants.

(Para 23)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, 100 – Issues not pressed in Trial court – Power of Appellate court – Before the First Appellate Court, no arguments have been raised qua the issue Nos.2 to 4 -- However, the First Appellate Court reversed the issues while deciding the appeal -- Having chosen to not press the issue Nos.2 to 4 before the Trial Court and in the absence of any challenge having been laid to the issues before the before the First Appellate Court, it is incomprehensible as to how the First Appellate Court reversed the findings -- Appeal allowed, judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court set aside and that of the Trial Court restored.

(Para 11-13)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction -- Before granting injunction, the court is required to apply three well known tests namely;

a) prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs

b) balance of convenience

c) irreparable loss and injury which the party may suffer if the injunction is not granted.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction – Joint owner -- Property is situated in an area which is being used for running a small scale industry -- No dispute that previously the defendants were utilising the area by constructing a shed with iron sheets -- Defendants have installed their machinery to carry out work of laundry and steam press -- Even if the defendants are permitted to put new iron or cemented sheets over the pillars, there will be no permanent change in the nature of the property -- Defendants stated that if suit is decreed and suit property falls in the share of the plaintiffs, they will not claim any compensation for the construction.

-- Decision of the suit is likely to take a long time and if the parties are not permitted to use the property, it will lead to wastage of resources.

-- If the plaintiffs succeed they will get the property with construction.

-- Parties are yet to lead evidence.

Held, Courts below have erred in obstructing the defendants from completing the renovation/ re-construction of the shed by granting injunction.

(Para 9, 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Deficiency in court fee – Civil Suit fixed for arguments -- Learned Trial Court, taking into consideration a period of about seven years at the stage when the matter was fixed for arguments, justifiably held that the question raised can be examined during the course of appreciation of evidence on the basis of material on record, dismissed the application – Order dismissing the application, upheld.

(Para 1-3)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte decree -- Setting aside of -- Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed after more than a year, dismissed by Ld. Trial Court – Nothing on the record to explain the delay -- Infact, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC proceeds on the premise that it was being filed within time from the date of knowledge -- No application or even a prayer for condonation of delay -- Both the Courts had noticed that though the defendant No.1-petitioner claimed that he was not served at the address, however, in the execution proceedings, on the same very address, the defendant No.1-petitioner received the summons and put in appearance through his counsel – No merit in the revision petition, dismissed.

(Para 1, 6)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(x)(a) -- Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (7 of 1887), Section 8 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Suit for specific performance -- Rejection of plaint -- Advalorem court fees – Court fee on market value of property -- Trial Court directed to determine the market value of the suit property, as on the date of filing of the suit, by allowing the parties to place on record the documentary evidence in that respect and also by seeking information from the office of Collector/Revenue Authorities and thereafter direct the plaintiff to pay the ad-valorem court fee on the market price of the suit property -- On payment of said court fee, the Trial Court may proceed further with the suit.

(Para 11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, Order 23 Rule 1, Order 41 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Appeal dismissed as withdrawn – Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner remained unsuccessful in the civil suit and withdrew the appeal by filing an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC by stating that there was a technical defect in the suit and the appeal -- Even no liberty was sought by the petitioner for filing afresh appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court and she has filed the writ petition, seeking same relief which cannot be entertained and adjudicated upon -- Writ petition suffers from the principles of res judicata – Writ petition dismissed

(Para 11, 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 10 – Local Commissioner’s report – Evidential value -- Commissioners’ reports are non-adjudicatory in nature and the Court adjudicate upon the rights of the parties -- It is only an opinion or noting -- Such a report does not automatically form part of the court’s opinion, as the Court has the power to confirm, vary or set aside the report.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 10 – Possession over property – Local Commissioner’s report -- Except the report of the Local commissioner, the appellant-plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to show his possession over the suit property and therefore, the Courts below have rightly drawn an adverse inference against the appellant/ plaintiff.

(Para 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 10, Order 16 Rule 12 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Closing of evidence -- One opportunity to lead evidence -- Due to pre-occupation of the counsel the evidence could not be recorded -- In order to do complete justice between the parties, plaintiff-petitioner granted one effective opportunity to lead its evidence, subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid to the defendant-respondent.

(Para 5)