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

(Para 10.4, 11, 13)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 28, 35(c) – Decree of Specific performance – Extension of time – Annulment of decree – Power of -- A suit for specific performance does not come to an end on passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains the control over the decree even after the decree has been passed -- Decree for specific performance has been described as a preliminary decree -- Power u/s 28 of the Act is discretionary and the court cannot ordinarily annul the decree once passed by it -- Court does not cease to have the power to extend the time even though the trial court had earlier directed in the decree that payment of balance price to be made by certain date and on failure the suit to stand dismissed.

(Para 25, 26)

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

(Para 34)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 28, 35(c) – Decree of Specific performance – Extension of time – Modification of decree -- When time for payment of money is extended, it does not mean a modification of the decree -- Trial court has power to extend the time, and the expression “such further period as the court may allow” would mean the court which had passed the decree, or, where the application u/s 28 of the Act of 1963, is filed.

(Para 44, 45)

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

(Para 20)

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

(Para 20-25)

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

(Para 4, 7, 8)

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

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

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

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

(Para 7-10, 13)

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

(Para 26)

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

(Para 1, 6-8)

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

(Para 19, 20, 23)

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

(Para 21-23)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 13-17)

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

(Para 2, 13, 16)

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

(Para 14)

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

(Para 6.5)

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

(Para 33)

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

(Para 7, 13-20)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 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)