Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 16 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 1 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Written statement filed after one year – Application for placing on record rejected -- Revisional jurisdiction – By Sec.16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Code of Civil Procedure stands amended, which mandates that the defendant(s) has to file the written statement within 120 days from the date of service of summons, failing which the defendant(s) right to file the written statement will stand forfeited and the Court shall not accept the written statement on record – Held, there is no error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 6-11)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Restitution of conjugal rights -- Transfer of case – While considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Restitution of conjugal rights -- Transfer of case – Ludhiana to Hoshiarpur -- Considering the fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in case, notice of motion is issued, even the respondent-husband has to bear the litigation expenses – Petition allowed.

(Para 7)

Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 19 -- Vacation of interim injunction -- Interlocutory order – Maintainability of appeal -- In terms of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, no appeal qua an interlocutory order is maintainable -- Moreover, question of interim restraint upon the respondent from continuing with divorce proceedings at U.S.A, at the stage when said proceedings have admittedly culminated in a decree of divorce (though exparte), does not arise -- Appellant is at liberty to challenge the decree whereby divorce has been granted by the State of Connecticut Superior Court on 23.08.2022, in accordance with law.

(Para 3-7)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Decree – Delay in filing appeal – Condonation of delay -- Limitation would run from the date of passing of the decree and not from any date prior to passing of the same – Seeker of condonation of delay is not required to explain the period of his absence during the trial, what is required is the period of delay which runs as per the Limitation Act and in this case the period of limitation had started from the date of decree, therefore, any delay after explaining of such limitation was only to be explained by the appellant.

(Para 15)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(2), 47 -- Decree – Execution -- Return of gold or present value – Interpretation of -- Decree of the Family Court directs the judgment debtors to return “68.937 sovereigns of gold ornaments or the present value of the same” --The word “present” indicates “the current point of time” -- When the court directed to pay its present value in case the ornaments are not returned, it can only mean that the value at the time when his failure to return the gold ornaments occurs -- DH/ respondents are entitled to get value of the gold ornaments as on the date of filing of the Execution Petition.

(Para 11-13)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(2) -- Decree – Every court shall ensure that the decrees it pronounces have sufficient clarity so as to avoid any kind of dispute in relation to the interpretation of the decrees.

(Para 14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 37 Rule 6(b) – Recovery suit -- Leave to defend -- Indemnity/ surety bonds – Trial Court granted leave to defend to defendant with a rider to file indemnity/ surety bonds to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff – Order, upheld.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151, Order 18 Rule 17-A -- Application u/s 151 CPC for leading additional evidence – Maintainability of – Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC a specific provision in the CPC providing for leading of additional evidence had been deleted by the Legislature -- Trial Court held that provision of Section 151 CPC can be used only where there is no specific provisions in the CPC and once the provisions of additional evidence had been specifically deleted from the Code, such relief cannot be obtained by making reference to Section 151 CPC -- Impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and is not having any element of arbitrariness or perversity.

(Para 3, 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Delay in written statement -- Period of 90 days provided under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is procedural and not part of substantive law -- No prejudice would be caused to the respondent in case the suit is decided on merits, after affording a proper opportunity to contest the same – One more opportunity granted to the defendant-petitioners to file the written statement within a period of 10 days subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs.

(Para 9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 23 -- Remand in appeal -- Scope of remand in terms of Rule 23 of Order XLI CPC is extremely limited.

(Para 11.2)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 23-A -- Remand by High Court in appeal – Remand correlated with Rule 23-A of Order XLI CPC and for its applicability, the necessary requirements are that “the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary” – There is no reason available in the impugned judgment as to why and on what basis the decree was reversed by the High Court -- Reversal has to be based on cogent reasons and for that matter, adverting to and dealing with the reasons that had prevailed with the Trial Court remains a sine qua non -- Thus, remand cannot be held justified even in terms of Rule 23-A of Order XLI CPC.

(Para 11.2)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 24 -- Merely because a particular evidence which ought to have been adduced but had not been adduced, the Appellate Court cannot adopt the soft course of remanding the matter.

(Para 14)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 28 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 148 -- Ex-parte decree for specific performance of agreement – Non-deposit of balance consideration -- Delay of 853 days in moving application for extension of time -- Rs. 8,00,000/- was paid as advance, balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- was directed to be deposited/paid by the plaintiff under the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.10.2013, within two weeks from the said date – Application u/s 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act on 7.6.2017/19.06.2017 with a huge delay of 853 days, seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration – Power u/s 28 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and the Court has to pass an order as the justice may require -- Trial Court erred in exercising the discretion in favour of the plaintiff and erred in extending the time in favour of the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- by condoning the huge delay of 853 days, which has not been explained sufficiently at all – However, at the same time, to strike the balance between the parties the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff as an advance is to be returned to the plaintiff with 12% interest per annum from 9.5.2012 till the actual payment, within a period of six weeks from today, failing which it shall carry interest @ 18% per annum.

(Para 5-8)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Mesne profit – Eviction of tenant -- Registered lease deed in vicinity showing rent of Rs.1,57,500/- p.m. -- Solely on account of the same, no specific assessment of the mesne profits can be made -- Age of the building, nature of construction and the extent of building to be user friendly, has to be taken into consideration -- Location of showrooms also to be looked into – Rs.85,000/- per month, as mesne profits, held to be appropriate.

(Para 17-19)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Mesne profit – Eviction of tenant – Appeal -- Mere preferring of an appeal does not operate as stay on the eviction order -- Till the decision of the appeal, the Courts are supposed to watch the interest of the landlord also -- Courts are required to strike a balance between the two and fix the extent of mesne profits, which should not be exorbitant, to such an extent that the tenant is forced to quit his claim and be deprived of the fruits of his success, in the event of appeal, being allowed.

(Para 18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17-A – Additional evidence – Change of Counsel – Ground of -- Merely by change of a counsel, a litigant does not get any right to adduce further evidence for the reason that the earlier counsel had not advised him to produce that evidence earlier.

(Para 7)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 54 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100-A -- Land Acquisition case – Maintainability of Letter Patent Appeal – Appeal lies to High Court against an Award and from the decree of High Court an appeal lies to the Supreme Court – Section 100-A was incorporated on 01.07.2002 – Appeals which have been filed before 01.07.2002 would not affect the accrued right of appeal vested in a suitor, who had actually filed the appeal before the said date, but those who had yet to file the appeal on or after 01.07.2002 would not be entitled to maintain the same – Though the appeals were originally filed on 05.04.2002, but various objections were raised by the office -- Appeals were then finally filed on 17.07.2002 -- Appeals were never complete in all prospects and filed after 01.07.2002 and listed for the first time before the Bench on 22.07.2002 – LPA not maintainable, dismissed.

(Para 4-10)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Interim order by Single judge – Letter Patent Appeal against interim order – Special Leave Petition -- It would be appropriate that the main dispute itself pending adjudication before the learned single Judge be decided on merits -- Pendency of the LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court against an interim order will serve no useful purpose -- LPA stands dismissed, Ld. Single Judge of the High Court requested to decide the proceedings on its own merits expeditiously preferably within a period of three months -- Status quo ordered to be maintained.

(Para 2-6)

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (19 of 2010), Section 25, 26 -- Execution of NGT order – Non-implementation of – Imposition of penalty – Whether sub-serve the purpose -- Observation of the Tribunal that there was no case for executing the earlier order u/s 25 is misconceived -- Tribunal is entrusted with the wholesome power to ensure that its orders are complied with -- Absence of sewerage facilities is an important aspect which would merit the exercise of powers by the Tribunal u/s 25 -- Invocation of the power to levy a penalty u/s 26 will not necessarily sub-serve the purpose.

(Para 4-6)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5, 13, 15 -- Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 5 -- Exchange of shamilat land – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Word 'benefit of inhabitants of the village' does not mean for the benefit of one or two persons amongst the inhabitants, but is for the benefit of entire village proprietary body -- Further-more, there is no prior approval of the State Government enabling the Sarpanch to file written statement admitting the claim of private respondents -- Exchange is result of collusion between the office bearers of Gram Panchayat and the private respondents -- Even otherwise, there is a specific jurisdictional bar created in Section 13 of the Act of 1961 against the civil court to entertain such a claim -- Thus, the said civil suit was ill constituted besides the award as made thereon by the Daily Lok Adalat concerned, is also vitiated by the vice of jurisdictional incompetence -- Award is a nullity.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 -- Decree for permanent injunction – Execution of – Warrant of possession – Permissibility of -- Defendants were restrained from demolishing the Rasta/Gohar in illegal and forcibly manner – Executing court was to ensure that the rasta was made available to the plaintiff without any obstruction and not to deliver possession of Rasta/Gohar to the decree holder/plaintiff – Warrant of possession by Executing Court, order is not sustainable, set aside -- Trial Court directed to proceed in light of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.

(Para 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18, Rule 17A – Additional evidence in rebuttal -- Categoric stand of the defendant in the written statement was that the agreement to sell was false, frivolous and a fabricated document -- Onus to prove the agreement to sell was on the plaintiff -- Attorney of the defendant-respondent stepped into the witness box and the documents were not put to the said attorney -- Held, bonafides on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner are questionable, he chose not to produce them in the affirmative -- No valid or cogent reasons are coming forth for not producing the documents earlier – Order dismissing application for leading additional evidence moved by plaintiff-petitioner affirmed.

(Para 5-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 – Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction – Grant of temporary Injunction against co-sharer -- Electricity connection existing in the joint land, originally in the name of common ancestor -- Mandatory injunction sought to retransfer the said connection in the name of plaintiffs and other co-sharers of land -- Temporary injunction granted by the trial Court only facilitates its joint use -- Discretion vested in the trial Court has been validly exercised on sound principles of law by granting the temporary injunction.

(Para 1-2, 10-13)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65, 113 -- Suit for declaration and possession -- Limitation – Limitation to file a suit for possession on the basis of title is twelve years -- Declaratory relief for title of the property is sine qua non for seeking possession over it -- The former, therefore, cannot be held to take away the essential characteristics of a suit for possession -- One of the reliefs sought of declaration will not mean that the prescribed period of limitation will not be applicable.

(Para 2, 8-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 84, 85 – Execution of decree -- Auction sale of property by court – Non-deposit of purchase money in time – Vitiation of sale -- Auction purchaser was required to deposit 25% of the amount the day on which he was declared purchaser i.e., 18.10.2011 -- Even the balance 75% of the amount has not been deposited as prescribe under Order 21 Rule 85 within time -- There is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 84 and Order 21 Rule 85, therefore the sale vitiated.

(Para 7.4-8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 64, 84, 85, 86 – Execution of money decree -- Auction sale of property by court – Executing court decided to sell the property of Judgment debtor – Appellant/ Objector purchased the property in question much before the auction of the property -- At the relevant time the property in question was not the subject matter of suit -- While ad-interim injunction, the property in question was not the subject matter of suit -- Ad-interim injunction cannot be pressed into service against the appellant – Therefore, at the time when the property was put to auction, the judgment debtor was not the owner and therefore, the same could not have been put to auction.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Transfer of divorce petition – Jaipur to Kurukshetra -- Petitioner and the respondent both are in Government service and are posted at Jaipur -- Petitioner is currently posted as Deputy Director in National Health Mission, Jaipur and a Class-I, Officer remained posted in Rajasthan since 2011 – Transfer Petition on the ground that her father-in-law was Assistant Superintendent of Police in Rajasthan (now retired), is a very influential person in Jaipur and that at his behest, threats have been extended to the petitioner, in respect whereof, some complaints have been made by her to the authorities -- Son of the petitioner is living and studying in Kurukshetra, Haryana, where he has initiated proceedings for maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C against the respondents – Held, extension of some threats as alleged may be a danger to her personal security but that may not be sufficient or a good ground for the transfer of the petition -- The complaints alleging such threats are all subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition and may be for creating a ground for seeking transfer of the divorce petition -- Even the initiation of the proceedings by the son at Kurukshetra in Haryana are subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition and appears to be an afterthought – Held, it is not just and proper to transfer the case outside Rajasthan to a remote place like Kurukshetra in Haryana.

(Para 3-6)

A. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 80, 80-A, 83, 87, 123 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Election petition -- Corrupt practice – Pleadings -- Rejection of plaint -- When an election is sought to be challenged by way of an election petition before the High Court it has to contain specific and unambiguous pleadings in relation to the alleged corrupt practices – High Court has to look into the pleadings and allegations raised, whether the allegations are vague or specific enough to allow the election petition to continue, as without specific details of alleged corrupt practices i.e. time, date and place and the names of persons involved in the alleged corrupt practices, the election petition would not be maintainable -- In such eventuality, proceeding with the same would be sheer waste of time.

(Para 9)

B. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 80, 80-A, 83, 87, 123 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Election petition -- Corrupt practice – Pleadings – Rejection of plaint -- Petition must contain concise material facts – Entire set of allegations as raised in the election petition is that expenditure incurred has not been accounted for and that would constitute ‘corrupt practice’ in terms of Section 77 read with Section 123(B) of the Act of 1951 -- Petitioner miserably failed to discharge the primary onus to prove the charges to the satisfaction of the Court as allegation of corrupt practice is quasi criminal in nature and material facts and full particulars in respect of even one corrupt practice are not stated in the election petition -- Therefore, failure to state even a single material fact will entail dismissal of election petition summarily as it does not furnish any cause of action -- Consequently, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed and the election petition stands rejected.

(Para 9-15)

Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 (IV of 1980), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 15, Order 9 Rule 13 – Divorce petition -- Ex-parte decree -- Service of summons on father – Father accepted the summons informing the Process Server that he would convey the same to the appellant did -- Father did not disclose to the Process Server that the appellant was not residing with him nor did he come in the witness box before the trial court to state so -- It is not the case of the appellant that she had empowered any agent to accept service of summons on her behalf -- Thus, conditions mentioned in Order V Rule 15 of the CPC were satisfied and accordingly, learned trial court rightly declared that the appellant has been duly served with the summons -- Once she did not appear, no option left before the trial court but to proceed ex parte against her and to pass ex parte judgment and decree on the basis of ex parte evidence led by the respondent/ plaintiff – Application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dismissed, order upheld.

(Para 1, 18, 19)

Goa, Daman and Diu Mundakars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (1 of 1976), Section 2(p), 31(2) – Mundakar – Eviction – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Suit for declaration and eviction in the year 1970 decreed the suit on 21.4.1975 -- During the pendency of a revision petition arising out of the execution petition, the Act came into force on 12.3.1976, under which the civil court’s jurisdiction was barred, came into force after the decree was passed by the Trial Court in the suit for eviction – Held, ouster of jurisdiction of civil court can be expressed or implied, but it cannot have retrospective effect annulling a decree validly passed by the civil court – Decree upheld.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of written statement – Facts already in knowledge -- Inadvertent mistake – Permissibility of -- Facts regarding the enquiry, enquiry report, and deposition of witnesses sought to be placed on record were well within the knowledge of the petitioners since 2013; and even pleadings with regard to the FIR had been included in the written statement filed by them -- It has been admitted that it was only ‘inadvertently’ that the enquiry report already on court file as Ex. P-29, or the deposition of the witnesses were not mentioned in the pleadings -- Clearly therefore, the petitioners’ case does not fall within the ambit of exception of due diligence contained in the proviso -- As such, the petitioners’ prayer cannot be not allowed at this stage.

(Para 11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 37 Rule 3 -- Summary suit for recovery – Leave to defend – Trial court granted leave to defend subject to the conditions of filing of surety bonds of Rs. 1 lac – Defendant/Petitioner has blown hot and cold in the same breath by advancing two different versions qua the issuance of the cheque and in such an eventuality, he does not deserve to be granted unconditional leave to defend -- Impugned order not suffers from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity to call for any interference.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 20(3) -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Interim maintenance – Expeditious decision – Prayer of -- Petitioner/daughter of respondent is pursuing undergraduate course in Medicine and Surgery in China, requires money for meeting her expenses – Petition allowed, Family Court directed to decide the application for interim maintenance expeditiously preferably within one month.

(Para 1, 4, 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint at appellate stage -- No cogent or convincing reason could be given for gross delay in filing of the application -- District Judge observed that the proposed amendment is not justified at such a belated stage and dismissed the application – No fault can be found with the impugned order declining the request of appellant/plaintiff for amendment of plaint during the proceedings before First Appellate Court – Revision dismissed.

(Para 13-18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Suit for specific performance -- Rejection of plaint -- Agreement to sell dated 24.01.2001 -- No date or period has been fixed for performance of the agreement or for execution of sale deed – After the death of vendor, defendant first time on 08.11.2021 by way of reply to the notice denied from the agreement -- Plaintiff claiming himself to be in possession of the disputed land, has also prayed relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making interference in possession of the plaintiff -- At the present stage of suit, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.

(Para 7, 8)

Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 83, 85 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Waqf -- Waqf property – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Jurisdiction to try and entertain suit in relation to determination of any dispute regarding Waqf and Waqf property would not vest in the Civil Court but in the Tribunal constituted under the Waqf Act, 1995.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Suit for damages/ compensation -- Family planning/ Tubectomy operation in civil dispensary – Failure of – Negligence of doctor -- Surgery in 1990, birth to female child in 1992 -- Compensation of Rs. 50,000 with interest @6% p.a. awarded by Ld. Lower Appellate Court, upheld.

(Para 11-13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2 – Bar to subsequent suit – Cause of action -- Suit for permanent injunction withdrawn – Subsequent suit for specific performance -- It has to be specifically established that the cause of action upon which the earlier suit was filed by the plaintiff, was the same on which he filed the subsequent/instant suit -- However, there is nothing on record to establish what was the cause of action of the plaintiff’s earlier suit for permanent injunction -- Held, suit for specific performance is not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

(Para 13-19)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for the declaration and permanent injunction against the six defendants -- Out of six defendants, only defendant No.2 had died before the filing of the suit – Suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff cannot be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC merely on the ground that one of the defendant had died prior to the filing of the suit.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- For passing an order under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the plaint is to be seen and not any other record.

(Para 10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21, Rule 4 – Cancellation of allotment of flat – Refund of amount -- Denial to receive Pay order -- Complainant cannot claim interest from the developer, who had returned the Pay Order -- Complainant’s argument that on account of the omission of the developer, she was wronged, and was thus entitled to receive interest, cannot prevail.

(Para 32-34)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21, Rule 4 – Deposit made in Judicial Forums, Tribunal, Court, Authority, Agency etc. – Directions issued to frame rules -- All courts and judicial forums should frame guidelines in cases where amounts are deposited with the office / registry of the court / tribunal, that such amounts should mandatorily be deposited in a bank or some financial institution, to ensure that no loss is caused in the future -- Such guidelines should also cover situations where the concerned litigant merely files the instrument (Pay Order, Demand Draft, Banker’s Cheque, etc.) without seeking any order -- These guidelines should be embodied in the form of appropriate rules, or regulations of each court, tribunal, commission, authority, agency, etc. exercising adjudicatory power.

(Para 35)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 149 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 4 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay in appeal – Condonation of delay – Insufficient funds for court fee – Ground of -- Application for condonation of delay dismissed as insufficient funds could not have been a sufficient ground for condonation of delay -- It would have been entirely a different matter had the appellant filed an appeal in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter removed the defects by paying deficit court fees.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (8 of 1974), Section 2(4), 118 – Sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh -- Private company is not an ‘agriculturist’ -- Approval was not given by the State Government and then the Company assigned his right to the plaintiff who thereafter filed the suit for specific performance -- No specific clause in the “Agreement to Sell”, which says that in case the purchaser fails to obtain required permission from the State Government, it could assign its rights to an agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh and the seller therefore would not have any objection in executing the Sale deed in favour of such an assignee -- No question of granting a decree of Specific Performance in favour of the plaintiff – Dismissal of suit upheld.

(Para 11-16)

C. Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (8 of 1974), Section 118 -- Sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh -- Whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings -- Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist, and this is with a purpose to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

(Para 17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Transfer petition by husband – Gurdaspur to Ludhiana – Suit for return of articles by wife --  Health condition of the petitioner/ husband not been denied by the respondent-wife -- It is most just and proper that transfer petition be allowed – Petition allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 – Consolidation proceedings – Dispute of rasta – Subsequent purchase of land – Easementary rights -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Principles

(i) The jurisdiction vested in the authority concerned, is limited only to create a passage for exercising thereons of easementary rights by the land owners concerned, but if only such a passage is not carved by the consolidation authorities concerned.

(ii) in case there is any resistance or obstacles reared by any land owners concerned, against the exercising thereons of the easementary rights by the petitioner, thereupon, the competent authority can pass lawful order thereon.

(iii) In case, the petitioner intends to ensure his making accesses to all the corners of the land, as became purchased by him, thereupon, the remedy available for him was to, in the above regard, rear a civil suit against the Gram Panchayat concerned, before the Civil Court concerned, with the permissible relief, that on account of his making a prolonged user thereof or through custom, rather his perfecting his title over the dominant heritage, which otherwise, as above stated, is owned by the Gram Panchayat.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of  1908), Section 11 -- Suit decreed – Appeal pending – Subsequent suit barred by res-judicata -- Matter in the present suit was substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit heard and finally decided by the court though the appeal is pending – Trial Court finds subsequent suit barred by the principle of res judicata, hence, the application for dismissing the suit on non-maintainability allowed – No room for interference in the valid reasons recorded by learned trial Court -- However, dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before learned First Appellate Court where the appeal is pending in an earlier suit proceedings owing to which the subsequent suit was held to be barred under law.

(Para 13, 14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 41 Rule 27 -- First appeal – Application for additional evidence – Appeal decided without decision on application -- Non-deciding of the application filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC has caused prejudice to the appellant -- Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court set aside and the case is remanded back to the Lower Appellate Court with a direction to decide the appeal as well as cross-objections filed by the respondents afresh after deciding the application filed by the appellant-Corporation under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 -- Pleadings – Agreement to sell – Fraud alleged – Suit for specific performance decreed by Trial Court and lower Appellate Court -- Agreement to sell attested by three attesting witnesses, who deposed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent – No evidence to the contrary – Defendant-appellant himself in cross-examination admitted the execution of the agreement to sell, his signatures as well as photograph on it and admitted his signatures on both pages of the stamp-paper – An ambiguous statement cannot per se make a document fraudulent – It is trite that a person raising the plea of fraud needs to plead and prove its ingredients – Using the word fraud/fraudulent without any material particulars would not tantamount to pleading of fraud -- Regular second appeal being devoid of any merit, dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC –Judgment and decree – Pendency of appeal – Stay of -- Mere filing of the appeal would not operate as a stay.

(Para 4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3 – Handwriting Expert -- Rebuttal evidence -- Defendant-petitioner specifically averred in written statement that the document was forged and fabricated and that there was no compromise and signatures specifically denied – It was incumbent for the plaintiff-respondents to have led their evidence in the affirmative -- Not having led their evidence in the affirmative, no evidence could have been permitted in rebuttal.

(Para 7,8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in plaint -- Conversion of suit from permanent injunction to a suit for mandatory injunction – Intervening circumstances i.e. the alleged encroachment of the path after the filing of the suit, led to the filing of the application for amendment. -- Basic structure of the suit is not being altered -- It would always be open to the plaintiff-petitioner to file a fresh suit -- Once it is open for the plaintiff-petitioner to file a fresh suit, there would be no reason to deny the incorporation of the said prayer in the present suit -- Amendment application allowed.

(Para 6)

Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 2(d) -- Contract – Question to amount of consideration – Permissibility of – Agreement categorically stated that Respondent No.1 would pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 per hectare towards irrigation restoration charges -- Therefore, the Respondent No.1 is not justified in challenging the levy of Rs.1,00,000 when it itself had agreed to the same -- Signing the agreement and issuing an undertaking would estop Respondent No.1 from challenging the levy of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges.

(Para 1, 17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 43 Rule 1 -- Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999), Section(s) 28(3), 30(2)(e), 134 – Refusal of application for rejection of plaint – Maintainability of appeal -- No provision for filing an appeal from an order of refusal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC passed by a Court -- No appeal can be maintainable under the said provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Limitation -- Resjudicata – Trial Court dismissed the application for rejection of plaint by observing limitation is a point of law, as well as fact, which can be ascertained by appreciation of evidence and for that reason, the plaint cannot be rejected in a summary manner and similarly res judicata can be adjudicated only after recording of evidence -- Order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, upheld.

(Para 3-5)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Ad-valorem court fee -- Plaintiffs are claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit property and not seeking relief of possession, seeking a declaration, besides praying for relief for permanent injunction -- Sale deed, GPA and agreement to sell, are being challenged on the ground of fraud – Trial Court held that ad-valorem court fee is not payable – Order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, upheld.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 9, Order 9 Rule 13 – Ex-parte-eviction order – Dismiss in default -- Application  for setting aside ex-parte eviction order dismissed in default – Revision -- Possession delivered to the respondents/ landlord on 29.03.2005 in the presence of the petitioner 17 years ago – Respondents let out the premises to other tenant -- Much water has flown under the bridge in the interregnum -- No ground made out to interfere in the impugned order -- Revision dismissed.

(Para 1,2,11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Necessary party – Proper party – Subsequent transferee of property – Right of-- Applicant being transferee of the property held by one of the co-sharers during the pendency of the suit does not have any independent right to be impleaded as a party -- Therefore, could not claim necessary or proper party required to be brought on record as such.

(Para 4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Injunction as to alienation of share from joint land -- Plaintiff could not possibly restrain defendants to make alienation from the joint land to the extent of their share.

(Para 7, 8)