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

(Para 13)

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

(Para 11-17)

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

(Para 18)

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

(Para 4)

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

(Para 5)

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

(Para 75)

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

(Para 3)

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

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

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

(Para 7, 8)

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

(Para 4)

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

(Para 8, 9)

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

(Para 3, 4)

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

(Para 42-47, 60)

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

(Para 49)

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

(Para 16)

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

(Para 34)

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

(Para 10.4, 11, 13)

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

(Para 25, 26)

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

(Para 34)

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

(Para 44, 45)

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

(Para 44, 45)

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

(Para 46)

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

(Para 50)

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

(Para 53)

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

(Para 59, 60)

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

(Para 20)

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

(Para 20-25)

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

(Para 4, 7, 8)

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

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

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

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

(Para 7-10, 13)

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

(Para 26)

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

(Para 1, 6-8)

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

(Para 19, 20, 23)

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

(Para 21-23)

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

(Para 12)

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

(Para 13)

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

(Para 3, 4)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 1, 7, 8)

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

(Para 5-8)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 13-17)

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

(Para 2, 13, 16)

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

(Para 14)

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

(Para 6.5)

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

(Para 33)

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

(Para 7, 13-20)

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

(Para 8.1)

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

(Para 8.2)

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

(Para 9)

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

(Para 10, 11)

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

(Para 12)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 8)

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

(Para 4)

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

(Para 1-3)

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

(Para 1, 2)

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

(Para 6, 7)

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

(Para 1-4)

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

(Para 5, 6)

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)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 140, 142, 351, 52 – Kidnapping or abduction in order to murder or for ransom (Section 140) – Compromise quashing of FIR --  Compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence – No useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the F.I.R. – FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 3-5)

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 11 Rule 12, 21 – 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)