Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 2 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Lawyers abstained from work -- Closure of evidence – Revision -- Petitioners/defendants seeking one opportunity to examine the witness who could not be examined on date as the Lawyers had abstained from work – Held, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioners are granted one opportunity subject to payment of cost -- Petition allowed and the petitioners afforded one opportunity subject to payment of Rs.5,000/-, to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 10 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Non-filing of written statement – Defence struck off – Civil Revision -- Although, no illegality or infirmity can be found with the impugned order, however, in the interest of justice so as to ensure that the revision petitioner is not prejudiced by closing doors of contest upon him, the petition accepted and the revision petitioner afforded one opportunity to file written statement within 15 days subject to paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the plaintiff.

(Para 4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Execution of decree for specific performance -- Delay in deposit balance sale consideration – Ground of -- Decree for executing the sale deed within a period of three months from the date of the judgment/decree 01.02.2011 -- Interim stay vacated only with dismissal of appeal on 24.12.2013 -- Decree holders filed the execution application, dated 25.01.2014, along with an application to deposit the balance sale consideration -- No specific order to deposit the balance sale consideration was passed on that application -- Judgment debtor’s application for rescission of the agreement to sell was finally dismissed by the Court on 04.04.2022 -- Thereupon, the objections were also dismissed by the impugned order, dated 12.07.2022, allowing the decree holders to deposit the balance sale consideration, which was accordingly deposited by them soon thereafter on 20.07.2022 – Held, it cannot be said there was any delay or failure on the part of decree holders in seeking execution of the decree in question – Therefore, the decree in question is executable, and the Executing Court has validly permitted deposit of balance sale consideration.

(Para 10-13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 -- Admission and  denial -- Provision under Order 12 CPC with regard to admission of documents had been incorporated to curtail the time of the trial because if the documents relied upon by any of the party is/are admitted by the opposite party that saves time and expenditure in proving said documents – Notice is to be issued in the beginning of the trial and not at fag end.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, Explanation 4 -- Suit for declaration -- Finding with regard to title in injunction suit – Res-judicata – Constructive resjudicata -- Contention that title of the suit property, was passed in a suit for permanent injunction and not in a suit regarding declaration of title,  so the finding with regard to the title is not binding – Held, contention is devoid of any merit -- Present lis is barred by principle of resjudicata -- All other contentions as raised by the appellant- plaintiff that other Wills were not taken into consideration; or that her sons had suffered a decree in her favour are barred by the principle of constructive res-judicata as per Explanation 4 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as all these issues could be raised by the plaintiff in the earlier litigation.

(Para 14-17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 95 -- Compensation for obtaining arrest, attachment or injunction on insufficient ground -- No evidence led qua any loss of business and litigation expenses -- Neither any argument nor any evidence that the attachment was on insufficient grounds -- Defendant-petitioner admitted that there were business transactions between the parties, he however, took a stand that certain amounts had been paid -- Defendant-petitioner was given an opportunity by the Court to furnish security to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- failing which the property was to be attached -- It cannot be said that there were insufficient grounds for attaching the property -- Neither the order of attachment nor the order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was ever challenged by the defendant-petitioner -- Revision impugning order of dismissal of application u/s 95 CPC dismissed.

(Para 1, 7-9)

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 -- Eviction of tenant – Mesne profit – Stay of eviction order by Appellate Authority and assessed the mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month – Appellate Authority referred to the Rent Agreement, whereby a shop situated in the same area have been let out with the monthly rent @ Rs.31,000/- for the same purpose – Held, by no stretch of imagination, assessment of mesne profit be construed to be exorbitant or excessive at all.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34, 37, 39 -- Rejection of plaint -- Ad-valorem court fees -- Suit for declaration that the plaintiff-petitioners were entitled to get the respective sale agreements executed in their favour as well as for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction -- By impugned order Trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioners to affix the ad valorem court fees treating it a suit for specific performance and for possession – Held, court fees is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court and in case at the time of final adjudication if the court fees is found to be deficit, the plaintiff-petitioners can always be asked to make good the court fees -- However, the case cannot be treated as a suit for specific performance at this stage -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Transfer petition by wife – Pune to Chennai – Virtual appearance before transferee Court -- Case transferred from Pune to Chennai, liberty given to the respondent to make an application before the transferee court to take part in proceedings through virtual mode, the transferee Court shall take note of the same and permit the respondent and insist on the physical presence only when it becomes absolutely necessary.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 2 -- Election petition – Closing of defence evidence – Vital witnesses -- Defence evidence directed to be closed on the ground that all the witnesses or their evidences-in-chief in affidavit forms were not produced within the time prescribed by the Court – Argued that defence witnesses who are left out are vital witnesses – In the interest of justice, two weeks’ time extended to enable the petitioner to produce all the witnesses or their evidences-in-chief by affidavits before the High Court.

(Para 1, 2)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Suit for damages and compensation – Rejection of plaint -- Advalorem Court fee -- Plaint has not quantified the damages -- Plaintiff has given a tentative figure of Rs.10 lacs as damages, otherwise, leaving it to the Court to assess and determine the amount of damages -- Plaintiff can be asked to affix the ad-valorem Court fee on determination of particular amount as damages payable to her by the defendant – Application dismissed – Revision also dismissed.

(Para 1,2,6)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 19, 21, 22, 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild – Liability of mother-in-law --  Rejection of plaint -- Contention that petition u/s 19 of the 1956 Act can only be maintained against the father-in-law and not against the mother-in-law -- Under common law, if the grand mother has the wherewithal, she has the moral responsibility to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Revision also dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

A. Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal – Substantial question of law -- Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Pankajakshi’s case (2016) 6 SCC 157 relied.

(Para 1)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Registered Will – Un-registered Will – Value of -- Will is not required to be mandatorily registered -- Testator may get it registered, however, an unregistered Will has equal value and has to be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(Para 14)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Proof of Will -- Non-examination of Advocate – Adverse inference -- Trial Court erred in drawing an adverse inference on account of non-examination of Advocate, who merely introduced Testator with the scribe-Advocate – Advocate was not the attesting witness of the Will -- Hence, he was not required to be examined.

(Para 15)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 – Proof of Will -- Irregular spacing in the Will -- Will is typed on a manual typewriter -- The attention of the scribe or the attesting witness was never drawn to the aforesaid alleged irregular spacing -- If the plaintiff wants the Court to believe that there is irregular spacing, the plaintiff should have sought explanation from the scribe as well as the attesting witness -- In the absence thereof, it would not be appropriate to disbelieve the Will merely on account of alleged irregular spacing in-between the lines.

(Para 16)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 -- Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell – Subsequent purchaser as party – It is in the interest of the plaintiff if the subsequent vendee is impleaded as a party so as to enable the Court to pass a comprehensive decree directing the subsequent vendee to join in the execution of the sale deed if the suit is decreed -- Subsequent vendee has a right of hearing and he is alleging that the original defendants are colluding with the plaintiff – Order permitting the purchaser to be impleaded as party upheld.

(Para 1, 4, 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Advalorem court fee – Pleading with respect to agricultural land -- In case of agricultural land, the market value shall be ten times the land revenue of the land – While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint or the documents annexed therewith are to be seen -- Plaint does not mention anywhere that the suit property is agricultural land – Plaintiff-petitioner granted six weeks’ time to affix the ad-valorem court fee on the Collector rate of the suit property.

(Para 6-10)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 – Execution of Pronote – Proved by one marginal witness – Scope of Handwriting and finger print Expert report – It is not essential that both the witnesses should be examined – Held, once the marginal witness had proved the execution of the document, the handwriting and finger print expert who is expected to submit report in favour of the parties approaching it, has been rightly held to be not a substantive piece of evidence in the peculiar fact of the case that the marginal witness had already proved the pronote.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1, 2, 3A – Ex-parte interim injunction -- Non-disposal of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC within 30 days -- About eight months expired, the application not decided – In interim orders no specific reason for inability to decide the application within 30 days mentioned – Revision petition disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC on merits within 15 days.

(Para 2)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Interim restoration of electricity connection -- Suit for possession and mesne profits by respondent no.1/plaintiff – Suit still pending -- Electricity being a basic necessity, is an integral part of right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- As long as the petitioner is in possession of the suit property, he cannot be deprived of electricity -- Electricity connection ordered to be restored subject to payment of requisite charges by the petitioner, if any, till the final decision of the suit -- Petitioner shall continue to pay the electricity charges regularly.

(Para 5-7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 140, 166 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27, Section 151 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Offending vehicle/ Tractor registered for agricultural purpose – Jamabandi as additional evidence -- Tribunal concluded that the offending vehicle was being used for commercial purposes as neither jamabandi nor any other evidence produced – Submission that jamabandi for the year 2015-16 is not relevant as accident is of the year 2017, is misconceived, as the validity of all Jamabandi is for a period of five years -- Second contention that appellant No. 2 owns only one acre of land and therefore, it is improbable that the offending vehicle was being used for cultivating the said land, is rejected being vague and conjectural – Held, ld.  Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the appellants/owner-driver.

(Para 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of pleadings -- Pleadings can be amended at any stage of the proceedings in such manner and on such terms and in such matters, as may be just -- However, if the amendments sought are necessary for determining the real controversy, the same have to be allowed.

(Para 9, 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 --  Amendment of plaint – Amendment of written statement – Court has to be liberal in allowing the prayer for amendment of pleadings -- However, when it comes to the amendment of the plaint, there is a slight difference in the sense that while allowing amendment of a written statement, general principle is that the amendment should be allowed even if it amounts to addition of new grounds of defence, substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement, the same principle cannot be applied while considering an application for amendment of a plaint as the same stands on a different footing -- Adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint is certainly objectionable.

(Para 13)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint – In the original plaint, it is claimed by the plaintiff that the deed of adoption in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void and, as such, the property of deceased SB has to devolve upon his heirs as per Muslim Personal Law – By proposed amendment, the plaintiff claims that in the absence of deed of adoption, he would be the lone legal heir entitled to ownership and possession of the property -- Apart, in the original plaint, the plaintiff claims a decree of partition against the defendants whereas by way of proposed amendment, he has sought substitution of relief of partition by a decree of possession of whole of the property left behind by deceased SB – Held, plaintiff seeks to change the very nature of the suit -- Inconsistent pleas can be taken and even subsequent events can be allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment but not when the total cause of action is going to be changed  -- Amendment sought by the plaintiff did not deserve to be allowed.

(Para 14-17)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Demarcation of property -- Application by defendant for appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation of the property -- Plaintiff-respondent is yet to prove his case by leading evidence -- Defendant-petitioner has not even started his evidence and it would be premature to come to a conclusion that there is any dispute or confusion regarding the demarcation of the land -- What in fact the defendant-petitioner is wanting is for the Court to collect evidence for him, which cannot be permitted.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Dismissal of application -- Maintainability of revision -- An order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.

(Para 8)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 15, 19(b) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Agreement to sell – Sale deed by Vendor in favour of third party – Subsequently suit for Specific performance --  Suit decreed – Execution of decree -- Held, once, by virtue of judgment and decree, it was proved on record that the agreement to sell was validly executed, any subsequent alienation/sale deed always governed and regulated by the rights conferred upon the petitioner-plaintiff under the agreement to sell – In the absence of objections by the purchaser from the respondent/judgment debtor, the executing court exceeded its jurisdiction while rendering the execution proceedings being infructuous -- The only protection to the persons having purchased suit property subsequent to execution of agreement to sell has been provided under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- Nothing on record to suggest that the subsequent transferee ever approached the executing court, invoking his rights under Section 19(b) of the 1963 Act – Impugned order set aside -- Executing Court directed to proceed with the execution proceedings based on the judgment and decree.

(Para 6-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Power of Appellate Court – Remand of case -- When the Appellate Court remands the case it cannot be done without reversing the findings given by the Trial Court – Lower Appellate Court without going into the merits of the case has simply, on the ground that the defendant-respondents were not given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence, remanded the case – Impugned order cannot be sustained -- Case remanded back to the lower Appellate Court with a direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

(Para 8, 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(2), 96, Order 7, Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Rejection of plaint – Revision – Appeal -- Plaint ordered to be rejected invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Held, rejection of plaint falls within the definition of decree as provided under Section 2 (2) of CPC and thus, becomes appealable u/s 96 CPC thereof -- Revision petition is not maintainable.

(Para 1-3)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 – Execution proceedings -- Warrant of possession -- Third party objections -- Summary dismissal – Impugned order is not a speaking order and the objections filed by the revisionists have been dismissed in a summary manner – Held, the order cannot be sustained under law, same is set aside with a direction to the Executing Court to hear the counsel again, and then pass a detailed, well-reasoned order on the objections within 10 days -- Till then, the execution of warrant of possession proceedings be kept in abeyance.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 13 Rule 4 (as amended in Punjab and Haryana) – Exhibition of documents – Per-se admissible documents -- Duty of court -- If the documents are already a part of the record and they are per se admissible, the Court is itself required to mark those documents as exhibits -- For this purpose, no separate application is required -- The Court can mark the documents at any stage particularly when they are already a part of the record.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 – Suit for recovery – Arbitration clause – Application for referring the matter to Arbitrator dismissed by Trial Court – Revision against the order -- Liability not disputed by the petitioners – Arbitration Clause related to dispute arising out of or in connection with the work order/ contract/ purchase order –Operation of the agreement ceases once the respondent has completed the work project – It is plain and simply a case of non-payment of dues – Arbitration clause not applicable to the case – Even the condition for amicable settlement was not adhered to by the petitioner – No error in the impugned order, revision petition dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 13 -- De-exhibition of documents – Objection to insufficiently stamped documents – Admissibility of document – Stage of -- Once an objection regarding the document having been insufficiently stamped is taken, the same needs to be decided and cannot be postponed till the time of the final decision and any other objection qua the admissibility of the document can be deferred.

(Para 1, 6)

A. Punjab Land Records Manual, Para 9.9 -- Jamabandi entry – Change in -- Land in question earmarked for Bazigar community -- Jamabandi for the year 1966-1967, reflected it as “Gair Mumkin Ababdi Makbooja Bazigar” -- Same entry in the jamabandi for the year 1986-1987 – Later in jamabandi for the year 2006-07, without there being any order passed by any of the competent authority/Court, the said entry has been changed to “Gair Mumkin Plot” -- Para 9.9 of the Punjab Land Records Manual that enjoins the revenue authorities to issue notice to all concerned before carrying out any change in the revenue entries -- Change made in the revenue entries in favour of Gram Panchayat was bad in law being in violation of the procedure laid down under Para 9.9 of the Punjab Land Records Manual of granting opportunity or putting to notice to all concerned and affected.

(Para 9, 10)

B. Punjab Land Records Manual, Para 9.9 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Jurisdiction of the Civil Court -- Once the change in entries from “Gair Mumkin Abadi Makbooja” to “Gair Mumkin Plot” have been found to be illegal and bad in law being in violation of the procedure laid down for the said purpose, no question of title was involved in the dispute, thereby creating a bar of jurisdiction with the civil Court -- Once respondents No.1 to 7 have been proved and found to be members of Bazigar community, there was no legal impediment for them to have filed suit for possession regarding the property earmarked for the common purposes of benefit of their entire community.

(Para 11-13)

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 24, 25 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Preventing injunction for usage of water-course -- Suit for permanent injunction – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Rejection of plaint -- Section 24 of the Act, 1974 deals with restoration of demolished or altered etc. water courses -- As per case of the plaintiff, defendants have not actually demolished or altered the water course, rather they are threatening to do so and preventing the plaintiff from using the water course -- The canal authorities have no power to issue an injunction order – It cannot be said that the plaint deserves to be rejected since jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit is barred – Application for rejection of plaint rightly dismissed by the trial court.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9, Orde 41 Rule 27 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Additional evidence -- Two applications, one for appointment of local commissioner and the other for additional evidence – Once the first application seeking appointment of local commissioner had been withdrawn, the same relief via second application under garb of additional evidence could not have been granted to them -- Application for additional evidence should not be allowed to fill in lacuna -- There are already two contradictory reports of Local Commissioners on record – Parties are required to prove their case by leading their own evidence and the Court is not to collect evidence for the parties – Order allowing permission for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage, set aside.

(Para 1, 13-18)

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 -- Eviction of tenant – Mesne profit – Tenant-petitioner is occupying the entire first and second floors of SCO -- Shop-cum-Office situated in one of the prime commercial sectors of Chandigarh -- Appellate authority deemed it proper to assess the mesne profits @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month -- Keeping in view the location of the property in dispute and the fact that the premises in the vicinity are going on rent for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- per month, mesne profits as assessed by the Appellate Authority is not excessive – Revision dismissed.

(Para 5-11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3 -- Document Expert – Evidence in affirmative -- Rebuttal evidence -- Defendant No.1 in the written statement admitted the agreement to sell but has pointed out that date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 5.5.2005 and not 5.8.2005 and there was cutting in the date, so as to make it appear as 5.8.2005 -- In that way, the plaintiff was aware of this objection having been taken right from the beginning and he could have led evidence in affirmative -- When defendants No. 2 and 3 had lead evidence including examining a document expert, plaintiff moved an application to rebut the evidence adduced by defendants No. 2 and 3, which is certainly not permissible -- Application was rightly declined and no reason is there to allow the same.

(Para 5-7)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 11, 12 – Contempt petition -- Jurisdiction of Family Court – Contempt notice by Family Court – Challenge to -- Held, proceedings u/s 11 can only be initiated by the High Court -- Hence, the order set aside – Revision allowed.

(Para 1-5)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Divorce petition – Non-filing of written statement -- Striking off defence – Petitioner-wife was never afforded sufficient and adequate opportunity to file her written statement -- Held, in the matrimonial litigation, the dispute is primarily relating to the human relationship, which ultimately not only affects the two families but the society at large as well and thus, the standard of strict applicability of the procedure needs to be avoided and instead of adopting hyper-technical approach, the courts are required to be more practical while dealing with such kind of litigation -- Revision petition allowed by granting one effective opportunity to petitioner-wife to file written statement as well as reply to the application for grant of interim custody of the minor child before the court below.

(Para 5-8)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Transfer of divorce petition – Yamunanagar to Mohali – Respondent- husband, besides looking after his shuttering business is burdened with the responsibility of upbringing three children; out of whom two are girls aged 18 and 21 years while the son is 15 years of age -- The age of the children is very crucial inasmuch as their studies and career is concerned – Singular concern that weighs is the interest and welfare of the children, which is paramount -- Keeping in view the interest of the young adults/ children of the parties, no case for transferring the petition u/s 13 of the HMA from Yamuna Nagar to Mohali is made out – Petition dismissed.

(Para 7-10)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 – Transfer of objection petition against arbitral award -- Execution Application at Patiala -- Objections u/s 34 at Sangrur – As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seat of arbitration alone would have exclusive jurisdiction over subsequent proceedings -- Transfer petition allowed and Section 34 Objections transferred from the Court of ADJ, Sangrur to the Court of ld. ADJ, Patiala. BGS SGS Soma JV’s case Law Finder Doc Id # 1640616 relied.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 383 -- Succession Certificate – Adoption deed -- Compassionate appointment -- Whether a Succession Certificate can be treated as Adoption Deed? – Usually, a succession certificate is the key in the absence of a will -- Issuance of succession certificate does give right of succession to the claimed property of a deceased person, whereas adoption deed is a legal document wherein all rights and responsibilities, along with filiation, from the biological parent or parents are transferred to adopted parents -- A succession certificate can be granted in favour of any person, including a nominee -- Succession certificates produced by the petitioner nowhere declare him to be the adopted son of deceased -- Claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected in the absence of an adoption deed -- Moreover, there is no other document on record, like a school leaving certificate, record of a Municipal Committee etc. reflecting the name of decease entered as father of the petitioner -- Mere statement given in court by the biological father cannot be taken into consideration as he is an interested party -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 33 Rule 1, 5, 15A –Application to sue as Indigent person -- Application dismissed as suit is vexatious, an abuse of process of law and the court and the suit is barred by res judicata -- Whether on the aforesaid ground the application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC namely to sue as indigent persons could have been rejected by the learned Trial Court? – Plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by res judicata it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court committed any error in rejecting the application to sue as indigent persons -- Liberty given to the applicant to institute a suit in the ordinary manner in respect of such right -- Appellants have agreed to pay the requisite court fees, further four weeks’ time granted to the appellants/ original applicants to pay the requisite court fees and on payment, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was presented – It will be open for the defendants to file an application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and/or any other application to reject the plaint.

(Para 6-6.6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2 , Order 7 Rule 11, Section 11 – Rejection of plaint – Res-judicata -- In the absence of evidence, the issue of res-judicata and the question whether the suit is barred by principles of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC cannot be decided -- Application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Order 2 Rule 2 CPC dismissed by trial court – No infirmity or illegality in the order – Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 12, 13)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 22, 23 -- Ex-parte proceedings -- It is categorically mentioned in the impugned order itself that several notices were sent to the petitioner and despite that; the petitioner had chosen not to appear before the authority to contest the proceedings -- Petitioner cannot take a somersault and start questioning the validity of the said order – Nothing wrong, petitioner being proceeded ex parte.

(Para 4)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 22, 23 -- House in lal dora – Eviction of son -- Petitioner/ son not purchased or acquired house by transfer of ownership – Parents of the petitioner had come in the world prior to the petitioner, therefore, if there is any ownership of the house within the family of the petitioner and the respondents, then obviously, it has to be with the parents of the petitioner – Senior citizen is entitled to protect any interest in property.

(Para 4)

C. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 22, 23 -- Eviction of son -- Possession of parents -- Even if the parents were not the recorded owners, still, they can protect their possession – Petitioner/ son not pleaded that the house in question was either constructed or created by him -- Positive case of the respondents-parents gone uncontested, that they are the owner of the house in question -- If the petitioner is not having any other accommodation under his ownership then it is for him to arrange for another accommodation for himself -- For the convenience of the petitioner, the parents cannot be deprived of their right to live in their residential house.

(Para 4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 2 -- Interim injunction – Vacation of -- Suit pending for written statement – Interim injunction for status quo qua construction over the suit property -- On the next date of hearing, despite the fact that defendants did not file the written statement or reply to the injunction application, the Court did not extend the stay – Revision accepted to the effect that parties shall maintain status quo as per order of the learned Trial Court, till the application under Order 39, Rule 2 CPC moved by the plaintiff-petitioner before the learned Trial Court is disposed of.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, 151 – Suit for specific performance of agreement -- Rejection of plaint – Impounding of agreement -- Agreement to sale with possession – Deficient stamp duty – Prayer for rejection of plaint and impounding of agreement dismissed – Evidence of the case has already been concluded – No error in the reasoning of the learned Civil Judge that “if after the appreciation of evidence, court finds that possession is delivered to the plaintiff vide the impugned agreement then before pronouncement of the judgment, the deficiency in stamp duty can be fulfilled.” – Revision dismissed.

(Para 1, 14)

Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978, Rule 77 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Election of Councilor – Challenge to -- Election petition – Non-deposit of fees of Rs.250/- -- Rejection of plaint -- Ld. Trial court allowed the respondent No.1/ plaintiff to deposit the mandatory fee/costs for the purposes of filing of the election petition and application for rejection of plaint dismissed --  Held, there is a provision of depositing two thousand rupees as security u/s 117 of the Act of 1951, similar to the provision of Rule 77 of the Election Rules, 1978 – Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu’ case 1973 (2) SCC 530 held that non-deposit of the security along with the election petition as required u/s 117 of the Act of 1951 leaves no option to the Court but to reject it -- Impugned order set aside and the election petition filed by respondent No.1/ plaintiff stands rejected.

(Para 1-15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Suit for partition – Amendment to include other property -- In written statement defendant submitted to include other joint property (plot) for partition amongst the parties – Petitioner/ Plaintiff in replication stated no objection for inclusion of the said plot also – Ld. trial Court did not frame an issue to this effect – Petitioner/ plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint, which was dismissed – In a suit for partition, all properties amongst the parties are required to be partitioned -- Impugned order set aside and application for amendment of the plaint allowed.

(Para 4, 11-15)

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 20 – Custody of child – Closing of evidence -- Sufficient opportunity -- Evidence of petitioner-husband started on 05.09.2018 and the same was ordered to be closed on 09.10.2018 – It appears that no fair and adequate opportunity was ever granted to petitioner-husband, so as to conclude his evidence -- Wherein, substantial rights of the parties are involved and that too, pertaining to the custody of their children and the result of passing of the impugned order is going to be that the petitioner-husband would not be able to support his defence taken in the written statement, which may, cause serious prejudice to him this regard – Impugned order set aside, petitioner-husband granting two effective opportunities to conclude his evidence before the trial court.

(Para 7-10)

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 5 – Execution of order – Power of Executing Court -- Eviction allowed, appeal dismissed, writ petition also dismissed – SDM dismissed the execution by holding that respondents have purchased the property from Municipal Council and the sale deed in their favour has never been challenged by the Market Committee -- Reliance has also been placed on a report to the effect that the property in dispute is located outside the revenue limits of the grain market – Held, executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree -- Reliance on the report is wholly misplaced because the report submitted on the administrative side cannot overrule the orders passed by the courts in exercise of their judicial powers – Order set aside – SDM directed to take immediate steps for the delivery of possession.

(Para 6-13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 20 --  Closing of evidence -- Opportunity to lead evidence -- After Covid-19 pandemic, at least ten effective opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence, which he failed to do -- No explanation for his not coming to the Court for his own cross examination as well as leading his remaining evidence – Keeping in view the fact that in case the petitioner/plaintiff is not allowed to lead evidence, the suit itself would be liable to be dismissed for want of evidence -- In the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to afford one last opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to conclude his entire evidence on one date to be fixed by the trial Court for the purpose subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondents/defendants -- Impugned order set aside, petition disposed of.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 10, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Stay of suit u/s 10 CPC -- Temporary injunction – Jurisdiction of Trial Court to pass interlocutory order -- Mere stay of trial u/s 10 of the Code would not preclude the Trial Court, rather, it would be well within the powers of the Court to entertain and decide applications for grant of interlocutory reliefs -- Any decision of interlocutory matters cannot be considered to be a step forward in the trial of a suit -- Revision allowed, matter is remanded back to the Court concerned with the directions to restore the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code and decide the same on merits, in accordance with the provisions of law.

(Para 10-12)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Eviction petition – Additional ground by amendment – Permissibility of -- Amendment to add additional ground that premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation -- Application allowed by learned Rent Controller – Case being at the initial stage, the addition of the ground of ejectment can be allowed by way of amendment.

(Para 1,2,7)