Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement not filed – Defence struck off -- Since written statement is a basic document to substantiate the cause of a particular litigating party, petitioner deserves to be permitted to file written statement and reply to stay application for which, of course she can be burdened with costs -- Impugned order set aside -- Trial court directed to grant one effective opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement not filed – Defence struck off -- It is always convenient for the Court to decide the controversy before it, after acknowledging the stand of both the sides -- By granting permission to file written statement, there is no wastage of time because proceeding in suit is still at the stage of service of notice upon defendant No.2 – One more effective opportunity granted to the petitioner/ defendant No.1 for filing his written statement and reply to the stay application.

(Para 10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered -- Defence taken by the other party in the written statement or otherwise would be wholly irrelevant at this stage -- There cannot be any dissection or segregation of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint.

(Para 9)

B. Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 – Ad-valorem court fee -- Petitioners were not executants of the sale deeds and power of attorney in question -- Petitioners have sought declaration to the effect that they are joint owners and in joint possession of the suit property, which was ancestral in the hands of their father qua them -- Petitioners have also sought decree for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from creating charge over the suit property and further restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of petitioners over the suit property -- Reading of plaint, nowhere suggests that the petitioners being ousted from the suit property are claiming its possession/ joint possession -- Petitioners cannot be asked to affix advolrem Court fee.

(Para 10-13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Claim petition under MV Act -- Written statement -- Defence struck off -- Non-filing of written statement despite availing several opportunities -- Everyone has right of hearing and, thus, no one should be condemned unheard -- Since written statement is a basic document to substantiate the cause of a particular litigating party, petitioners should be permitted to file written statement -- Impugned order set aside, learned Tribunal would grant only one effective opportunity to petitioners to file written statement and the said opportunity would only be available to petitioners, subject to deposit of costs of Rs.5000/-.

(Para 1, 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 1, 1-A -- List of witnesses not provided within 15 days -- Procedural law is meant for advancement of justice and not to subvert the same -- Courts should give preference to the cause of substantive justice over the procedural technicalities -- Provision of Order 16 Rule 1 CPC cannot be said to be mandatory but only directory -- Liberty given to the petitioner to summon two official witnesses with assistance of the Court and on their appearance they should be examined by the learned trial Court without any delay with opportunity to the other party to cross-examine them.

(Para 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 – Delay in written statement – Defence struck off -- Provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC though ought to be adhered to but learned Court below could have still permitted petitioner to file written statement subject to certain penalty as a deterrent -- Court should not be too harsh to disallow filing of written statement -- Petitioners/defendants No.2 & 3 granted one last opportunity to file reply/ written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff/ respondent.

(Para 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- In order to reject a plaint for the suit by invoking provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court needs to be guided only by the averments in the plaint and not by the defence taken by the defendants.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Suit for permanent injunction and recovery – Cause of action – Necessary party -- Rejection of plaint -- Transactions were directly made by respondent No.1/ plaintiff with a sole proprietorship firm through its proprietor respondent No.3 who is father of the petitioners – Petitioners received and acknowledged the goods under the invoices issued by respondent No.1 and petitioners made part payment of the due amount from time to time -- No contract between petitioners and respondent No.1 and undertaking with regard to payment of disputed amount -- Petitioners are neither necessary nor proper party for the purpose of proper adjudication of the suit -- No cause of action to file the suit by respondent No.1 against the petitioners -- Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint against them allowed.

(Para 2, 11-13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27, Section 151 -- Additional evidence -- Original sale deeds were handed over to the counsel who failed to produce and prove the same whereas photostat copies of sale deeds were produced -- Said evidence is necessary for doing complete justice to the parties – Trial Court allowed the application -- No infirmity in the order passed by the court below, revision petition dismissed.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Section 151 – Temporary injunction – Appointment of Receiver -- Part of the suit property is owned by Shamlat, which vests in Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat has handed over the management of the Dera to the plaintiffs -- Nothing to show that the Dera is not being managed properly -- A Receiver cannot be appointed to deprive a party of a de facto possession -- Appointment of Receiver is considered to be very harsh remedy and such jurisdiction should be exercised only in extreme case with utmost care and caution -- Order of appointment of Receiver set aside -- Defendants restrained from interfering in the management of Dera/suit property except in due course of law.

(Para 19-21)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 – Ex-parte proceedings – Summoning of defendants -- Notices issued received back with the report of incorrect addresses and the appellant-plaintiff was directed to furnish correct addresses -- Fresh addresses of respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.5 and 6 were never furnished -- Finally, they were proceeded against ex-parte, while relying upon notice issued through publication in the News Paper, without making any effort to serve them through ordinary process and other means and that too without the fresh and correct addresses – Ex-parte judgment and decree set aside, matter back to the Trial Court for its fresh adjudication.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 9 Rule 13 – Ex-parte decree – Remedy -- Remedies under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC of filing an application for setting aside an ex-parte decree as well as an appeal under Section 96(2) of CPC can be availed consecutively.

(Para 10)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13, Section 96 – Ex-parte decree – Setting aside of -- Appeal – Scope of -- An application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the Court can only look into the matter as regards the validity of service upon the party who was proceeded against ex-parte, whereas in an appeal filed under Section 96(2) of CPC, the Appellate Court can even go into the merits of the ex-parte judgment and decree besides looking the aspect of service.

(Para 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in written statement -- Proposed amendment is only in the shape of clarification to show that previously also money transactions were going on between the parties -- No new case is being introduced by way of proposed amendment -- Proposed amendment not going to prejudice the respondent/ plaintiff -- Application seeking amendment of the written statement allowed, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 7, 8)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C -- Supply of electricity – Shifting of electric pole and transformer – Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility) – Prayer is for shifting of the Transmission line and not qua the supply of electricity, the Permanent Lok Adalat did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application -- A judicial authority is required to examine the legal issues, even if not raised, at the time of adjudication -- An illegality cannot be validated – Writ petition allowed, award set aside.

(Para 7-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 20 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Closing of evidence in suit – One opportunity to lead evidence -- Petitioner admits that there is some inaction on her part but proving of the Will is necessary -- Petitioner-defendant No.1 wants to examine only two witnesses, Lambardar and Record Clerk of DC Office -- Petitioner should not be non-suited merely on procedural technicalities -- No prejudice would be caused to other side if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead remaining evidence -- Petition disposed with a direction to the trial Court to give one opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V 0f 1908), Order 21 Rule 97 -- Suit for possession -- Execution of decree -- Third party objection – Framing of issues – Requirement of -- It is not necessary that in each and every case, irrespective of the merits of the objections, the Executing Court is required to frame issues -- After evaluating the objections and the reply filed by the parties, the Court is required to form an opinion as to whether any triable issue is involved in the given case or not.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (v oof 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Suit for permanent injunction – Amendment of written statement -- In written statement, petitioner-defendant has categorically admitted about the respondents-plaintiffs to be in illegal possession of the suit property -- By virtue of proposed amendment, the petitioner-defendant intends to take a somersault and deny about the possession of the respondents-plaintiffs over the suit property and thereafter, assert itself to be owner in possession of the suit property -- This withdrawal of the admission shall be causing prejudice to the rights of the respondents-plaintiffs -- Applications for amendment of the written statement dismissed.

(Para 17-22)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rule 3(2) – Death of plaintiff – Limitation -- Abatement of suit --  Since there is an amendment made to Order 22 Rule 3 CPC (Amendment by High Court of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh), limitation period of 90 days would not be applicable -- Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application and has brought on record the legal representatives of deceased/ plaintiff no.1 -- No error in the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court so as to warrant interference by High Court – Revision dismissed.

(Para 8-11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, 107, Order 41 Rule 23, 23A -- Remand by First Appellate Court – Power of -- Suit for possession by way of specific performance – Trial court dismissed the suit -- Due to the oversight plaintiff's evidence closed without permitting the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff -- First Appellate Court chose to remand the case back to the trial Court for deciding it afresh – Held, First Appellate Court should have permitted the plaintiff to appear in the witness box and face cross-examination -- Appeal allowed, judgment passed by the First Appellate Court set aside, first appeal restored to its original number.

(Para 3-7)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 28 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 9 Rule 13 -- Recession of agreement to sell -- Ex-parte decree for specific performance on 12.3.2011 -- Amount to be deposited in the Court within 3 months -- Balance amount deposited by respondent/ plaintiff with the Court on 6.8.2011 – Petitioner/ defendant neither filed any appeal against ex-parte judgment nor filed any application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside of ex-parte decree, meaning thereby that he accepted the ex-parte decree – Application u/s 28 of the Act after more than 2 years of the passing of the ex-parte decree and after about 1½ year of the deposit of balance sale consideration by the respondent --  Held, there was no inordinate delay in depositing the balance sale consideration -- Delay in deposit was rightly condoned by the learned trial Court -- Application filed by the petitioner u/s 28 of the Act for recession of agreement dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 158 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Partition of land – Challenge to – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Against order passed by A.C., 1st Grade, the plaintiffs were having statutory remedy of filing an appeal to the Collector -- Said remedy was not availed by the plaintiffs – In the instant case, question of title has not been decided by the revenue officer during the partition proceedings -- Civil Court have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the plaintiffs – Suit dismissed.

(Para 14, 15)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22-C(4) to (7), Section 22-C(8) – Permanent Lok Adalat – Conciliation proceedings – Necessity of -- No conciliation proceeding initiated by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) before passing award -- Award set aside, matter remanded to the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) for fresh adjudication as per the procedure prescribed by law.

(Para 4, 5)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Advalorem court fees – Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession over the suit property and sale deed is null and void and same be set aside with consequential relief of permanent injunction -- Dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 by Trial court without noticing the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case -- Impugned order is bad in law -- Revision allowed, impugned order set aside and the learned Trial Court directed to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh, in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case 2010 (12) SCC 112 = 2012(2) L.A.R. 333 = (2010) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12547.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 45 – Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (42 of 1976), Section 396 -- Temporary injunction – Making of dump over suit property by Municipal Corporation – Non-serving of notice u/s 396 of M. Corp. Act 1976 -- Objection as to Maintainability of suit -- Jamabandi entries in favour of plaintiff -- There is presumption in favour of the entries recorded in the record of rights i.e. jamabandi – Defendants/ Municipal Corporation not having any document in their favour and have not been able to demarcate the land -- Possession of the property on the vacant plot always vests with owner and even if the garbage is being thrown on the same by the public, it does not divest the true owner from its possession -- Use of property as a dump has no right to change the nature of the property -- Defendants can install the compactor at any other place -- Revision petition allowed, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction allowed and the defendants-respondents restrained from making a dump over the suit property.

(Para 4, 11-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 9 -- Dismissed in default – Date of knowledge – Limitation of 30 days for seeking restoration -- Explanation that on 16.08.2022, plaintiff was informed next date of hearing as 01.11.2022, and therefore, only on 01.11.2022, he came to know of the actual date of hearing was 01.09.2022 -- Broadly speaking, plaintiff is owning the mistake committed by him cannot be denied with his/her rights, without its adjudication in accordance with law – Suit restored subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Suit for specific performance – Impleadment as party – An application for impleadment as a party/ defendant on the ground that respondent no.2/ defendant had executed an agreement to sell with regard to the same land with petitioner also -- Application was dismissed by way of impugned order – Held, remedy with the petitioner would be to file a separate suit for specific performance – Petitioner is not a necessary party and not even a proper party and it would be for the dominus litis to decide as to who is to be impleaded as a party in the civil suit -- No relief claimed against the petitioner -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 2, 5-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 14 Rule 5, Section 151 -- Framing of additional issue -- Suit for recovery on the basis of pro-note and receipt – In written statement there is specific preliminary objection that the pro-note and receipt is forged and fabricated document which is a result of fraud and misrepresentation, having prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with the marginal witnesses – Ld. trial Court was required to frame specific issue on this preliminary objection -- Trial Court directed to frame specific additional issue.

(Para 3)

A. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 49 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 107 -- Unregistered lease deed – Collateral purpose -- Nature and character of possession contained in a flawed document (being unregistered) in terms Section 107 of the 1882 Act and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act can form collateral purpose when the “nature and character of possession” is not the main term of the lease and does not constitute the main dispute for adjudication by the Court.

(Para 13)

B. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 49 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 107 -- Unregistered lease deed – Nature of possession – Primary dispute -- Nature and character of possession constitutes the primary dispute -- Court excluded by law from examining the unregistered deed for that purpose.

(Para 13)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 -- Suit for specific performance – Limitation -- Earnest money of Rs.1,000/- was paid out of the total sale consideration of Rs.6,000/- -- Appellants was to apply for permission to sell in 8 days of ATS – From the ninth (9th) day onwards a right accrued to the respondents to move Court -- ATS is dated 31.07.1975 and the suit was filed on 01.01.1981 -- Limitation for filing a suit for specific performance, as per Article 54 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 is 3 years – Suit dismissed -- Lump-sum refund quantified at Rs.1,50,000/-.

(Para 5-14)

Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 73, 74 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Agreement to sell -- Suit for recovery of Rs.20 lacs given as earnest money – Suit dismissed by Trial Court affirmed by First Appellate Court -- Plaintiff was not ready and willing to buy the land in question on the target date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed as he was not possessed with the balance sale consideration in the office of Sub Registrar itself – First appellate Court found that Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 would not be of any help to the plaintiff because he himself has broken the agreement/contract -- No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal for the consideration of this Court – Appeal dismissed

(Para 2-8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 Explanation IV -- Appointment as substitute primary teacher -- Constructive res-judicata – Issue of absorption as Assistant teacher -- In the earlier round of proceedings culminating in the order of the Court, this issue was never raised -- His claim for absorption as an assistant teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is clearly barred by constructive res judicata.

(Para 32)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 Explanation IV -- Constructive res-judicata -- Doctrine of constructive res judicata is based on the might and ought theory -- Doctrine itself is based on public policy flowing from the age-old legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that in the interest of the State there should be an end to litigation and no party ought to be vexed twice in a litigation for one and the same cause.

(Para 34, 35)

C. Master Circular dated 29.01.1991, Clause 6 – Past service as substitute teacher – Counting of past service on obtaining status of Temporary – Interest on arrears -- Appellant will be entitled to take into account the past service rendered by him as substitute teacher in different spells, from the date of obtaining temporary status -- Appellant has superannuated now -- Pay of the appellant shall be re-fixed after granting continuity of service with all consequential benefits in accordance with Clause 6 of the Master Circular -- All the necessary increments and allowances due on that basis also should be granted -- Retrial benefits also should be consequently reworked -- Unpaid arrears amount be paid to the appellant with six percent interest from the respective dates the various amounts fell due.

(Para 44, 45)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 20 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Closing of evidence in suit – One opportunity to conclude evidence -- 10 effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner-defendant No.1 but only three witnesses were examined -- On a couple of occasions, the Bar was abstaining from work -- Trial Court did not commit any illegality in closing the evidence – However, matters should be decided on merits and parties should not be non-suited on technicalities -- One opportunity granted to the petitioner-defendant No.1 to lead his evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff – Revision allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction -- Before grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff is required to satisfy three tests namely:-

i. Prima facie in his favour;

ii. Balance of convenience in this favour; and

iii. Irreparable loss and injury, if the injunction is not granted.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 41(h) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Temporary injunction against Karta --  Appellate court held that plaintiff cannot restrain the karta (his father) to alienate the property -- Moreover, the defendant No.1 disputes the fact that plaintiff is his biological son -- It would not be appropriate to restrain the defendant No.1 from alienating the property particularly when the doctrine of lis pendens is applicable in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the plaintiff shall not suffer any prejudice if alienation is made during the pendency of the suit -- No ground to interfere is made out – Revision dismissed.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 15 – Service of summons -- Respondent is stated to have been served physically through a member of his family -- Respondent stands duly served -- None has appeared on behalf of the respondent, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) -- Appointment of arbitrator -- Landlord-tenant dispute – Lease deed would show that the parties had specifically agreed for resolution of the disputes through arbitration -- Notice to the respondent had specifically been called upon for initiation of arbitration proceedings, but to no avail – Such disputes can be adjudicated by way of arbitration – District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

(Para 6-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 59 -- Time barred claim – Amendment of plaint -- By amendment plaintiff wanted to challenge the relinquishment deed for which the limitation is 03 years – Relinquishment deed is dated 25.11.2014, application for amendment filed on 17.03.2020 – As a general rule, the Court should decline amendment if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of application – Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed the amendment – In revision impugned order set aside.

(Para 1, 7-11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Section 11 – Res-judicata – Rejection of plaint -- Issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC -- Adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court and the judgment of the Appellate Courts -- Suit needs to be decided on merits with an issue on res judicata along with the other issues.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 31, Section 10 – Sub-judice – Multiple preliminary decrees -- Suit for partition -- Preliminary decree issued against the petitioner/ defendant -- Two sisters were not arrayed as parties -- Independent suit by them seeking partition – During the pendency of the said suit, they filed an application seeking yet another preliminary decree in the earlier suit -- Supplementary preliminary decree passed – Submission that having filed a separate suit, the separate application is hit by Section 10 of the CPC – Held, section 10 of the CPC not application in the case – Law does not bar passing of numerous preliminary decrees.

(Para 3-9)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 35, 36 -- Eviction – Execution -- Eviction order by Rent Controller in 2010 – Appeal of tenant dismissed in 2012 -- Execution petition was filed in the year 2019 -- Objection of petitioner-tenant dismissed and no stay order in appeal -- Warrant of the possession received back unexecuted – Impugned order for warrants of possession have been issued with a further direction to the bailiff to break open the locks of the shop in possession of the petitioner -- No illegality in the said order at all warranting interference in Revisional jurisdiction -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in plaint – Belated stage -- Amendment can be allowed at any stage, but for the good grounds, spelt out for the same -- Amendment sought do not change the nature of the suit – Held, procedural law is handmaid to the administration of justice -- Party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure -- Declaration has been sought in the body of the plaint, but however, it was not mentioned in the head-note as well as prayer clause of the plaint – Proposed amendment is more or less of clarificatory nature -- It cannot be held that it is time barred claim – Ld. Court below had right so allowed the amendment, subject to payment of costs – Revision dismissed.

(Para 13-21)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Consumer complaint -- Non-filing of written version by opposite party – Right to argue -- Although the opposite party had not filed its version and may not have participated in the proceedings before the NCDRC, nevertheless, had the right to address final arguments before the NCDRC -- Since the request for adjournment was refused and only the complainant was heard on merits, there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice -- Impugned orders set aside, matter remanded to the NCDRC to grant a reasonable opportunity to both sides to address arguments on merits.

(Para 9)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Transfer of matrimonial dispute case – While considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important, convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses.

(Para 5)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Transfer of divorce petition – Karnal to Sonipat -- Petitioner-wife residing with three minor children at Sonipat – Petition filed u/s 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Karnal transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Sonepat.

(Para 6)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(IV) – Advalorem court fee -- Suit for declaration that sale deed is wrong, illegal, null, void, ab initio, false and frivolous document -- Land in dispute is an agricultural land, the cheque given to the plaintiff towards sale consideration was dishonoured and he has set up a case that he is in possession of the property and has not made any prayer for grant of decree of possession – Petitioner will pay the court fee 10 times of the revenue payable and not on the value of the property or the sale deed.

(Para 6-8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Bonafide purchaser – Necessary/ proper party -- Suit against parents for declaration to the effect that suit property is Hindu Joint, ancestral and coparcenary property of the plaintiffs as well as defendants and they have birth right in the said property -- Mother of plaintiff sold property to petitioner -- Petitioner had specifically taken the plea about there to be collusion between the plaintiffs as well as their mother -- Plea of bonafide purchaser, has to be decided, before it can be held that no rights flow to him, on the basis of the sale deed in his favour – If the application for impleadment is thrown out, without decision on the aforesaid question, then certainly, the petitioner will come up with separate suit to enforce his alleged right, which means multiplicity of proceedings -- It cannot be said that petitioner is neither necessary or proper party to the suit – Application allowed.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment as party -- Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings -- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to add any person as party, at any stage of the proceedings, if the person, whose presence before the Court is necessary, in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit -- Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision of the Code.

(Para 11)

A. Representation Of The People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950), Sections 83, 86 – Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 15 --  Contents of election petition – Verification of pleadings – Affidavit -- Requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory -- It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance -- As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit.

(Para 14)

B. Representation Of The People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950), Sections 83, 86 – Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 15 – Election petition – Non-filing of separate affidavit -- Election petition contained on affidavit and also a verification -- In this very affidavit, the election petitioner has sworn on oath that the paragraphs where he has raised allegations of corrupt practice are true to the best of his knowledge -- Though there is no separate and an independent affidavit with respect to the allegations of corrupt practice, there is substantial compliance of the requirements under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act.

(Para 15)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41, Rule 5, Section 5, 96 -- Appeal – Non-decisioning on stay application – No order passed on the stay application by learned Lower Appellate Court – In execution warrant of possession has been ordered to be issued against the property of the petitioner(s) – In the given circumstances, learned Lower Appellate Court shall look into the matter and dispose of the application for grant of stay, expeditiously, if not the main appeal.

(Para 1-4)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12, 14 -- Contempt -- Non-listing of matter before Supreme Court -- Merely because the matter is not listed on the date specified by the Court, cannot be a ground to initiate contempt petition against the Secretary General and Registrar (Listing) of the Court.

(Para 2)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of written statement – Proposed amendment/ plea is a matter of arguments -- Pleadings shall only state only the concise form of material facts and not evidence – Amendment application dismissed.

(Para 3)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Electricity charges of Bar Association – Liability of Government – Arrears and future Bills of the three electricity connections i.e. Bar Room, Litigant Shed, and Bar Library to be paid by Haryana Government, decreed -- No irregularity, illegality or perversity -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Suit for declaration that the alleged gift deed is illegal, null and void -- Amendment sought to clarify that the gift deed is result of fraud, mis-representation and executed by the petitioner under undue influence and after execution of the said gift deed, the respondent abandoned the petitioner and later on, the petitioner filed petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and the same was allowed vide ex parte decree and that the respondent has shifted to Australia and got re-married – Proposed amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and the same is not going to cause any prejudice to the respondent – Amendment allowed subject to costs of Rs.7,000/-.

(Para 2-14)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68, 69 -- Will -- Death of attesting witnesses – Proof of -- Sections 68 and 69 of Evidence Act are with regard to the procedure to be followed in order to prove any Will -- Section 69 of Evidence Act will be applicable as both the attesting witnesses of Will are stated to have died and as per the said provision of law the Will in question could be proved by examining witnesses who are able to identify the signatures/ attestation of one attesting witness atleast on the Will in question.

(Para 5)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68, 69 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151 -- Will -- Death of attesting witnesses – Examination of son of attesting witness – Respondent intend to examine son of one of the attesting witness of the Will to identify the signatures of said attesting witness on will in question as per the provisions of Section 69 of Evidence Act -- Said evidence is necessary for the just decision of the case -- Request for the same was made at the belated stage and for that the learned trial Court rightly burdened the respondents with cost of Rs.10,000/- -- No ground to interfere -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Recovery suit -- Expert opinion -- Specimen signature/ Handwriting of plaintiff -- Respondent/ plaintiff himself admitted in his cross-examination that he is ready to give his specimen signatures and handwriting -- No prejudice would be caused to him -- Revision allowed, respondent/ plaintiff directed to give his specimen signatures and handwriting for comparison from the handwriting expert engaged by the petitioners/ defendants.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 1(2) – Execution -- Money decree – Interest upon -- Deposit in the court – Necessity of notice to decree holder -- When the decretal amount is deposited by the judgment-debtor in the Court, it is imperative upon the judgment-debtor to give notice to the decree-holder about the deposit of the decretal amount -- Interest ceases to run on the deposit made by the judgment-debtor and notice given or on the amount being tendered outside the Court in the manner provided in Order 21 Rule 1(b) -- Interest will not cease to run merely by reason of making the deposit into Court unless it is followed by the service of notice -- Decree-holder’s right should be affected only after he is informed that the decretal amount is available for him and that he can draw it out of Court.

(Para 8)