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)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 60, Order 21 Rule 64  -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53 -- Attachment of property – Property transferred in favour of son by lease deed by Judgment debtor – Lease deed is dated 20.2.2014 just before passing of the decree on 1.5.2014 – Executing court dismissed the application without adverting to provisions of Section 53 of the Act – Impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to the Executing Court for afresh adjudication by taking into consideration provisions of Section 53 of the Act and all other relevant material.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 26 -- Allotment of land – Jurisdiction of civil court – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land as described in the head note of the plaint read with allotment letter dated 7.1.1986 – Allotment under letter dated 7.1.1986 is pending challenge by way of ROR before the Financial Commissioner wherein implementation of the order has also been stayed, yet, petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 has been dismissed – In view of Section 26 of the 1972 Act, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred -- Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside and application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint allowed.

(Para 2-8)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Dissolution of marriage – Witness-wife living in Canada – Cross-examination through video conferencing – Procedural aspects in conjunction with the latest technology have to be used, so as to help the parties to avail their remedies in the most efficient and effective manner, rather than curtailing their rights -- It would also ensure expeditious disposal of the proceedings including, avoid the burden of unnecessary expenses relating to the visit of petitioner, if any -- Trial court shall allow the petitioner-wife to appear as witness for the purpose of her cross-examination through video conferencing by following the procedure laid down under the aforesaid High Court Rules and orders.

(Para 10, 11)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Relevant date of maintenance if order is silent – Clarification by Executing court -- Order awarding maintenance do not specify as to from which date the amount of maintenance awarded is payable -- Executing Court clarified after hearing both the parties on the issue, that the amount of maintenance is payable from the date of the application and not from the date of the order – Held clarification is as per the law settled. Rajnesh’s case, 2021(1) L.A.R. 311 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15586 relied.

(Para 4)

A. Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 3(5), 10, 19 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 100 -- Death/ injury to employee -- Compensation to employee -- Jurisdiction of civil Court – Substantial question of law -- Whether provisions of Section 3(5) and 19 the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, bar jurisdiction of civil Courts to entertain a suit for damages/compensation on account of death or injury suffered by an employee during the course of employment – Held, civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages/compensation with respect to an injury or death of an employee, if no claim for compensation before a Commissioner under the Act of 1923 has been instituted in that regard.

(Para 12-14)

B. Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 3(5), 10, 19 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 100 -- Death of employee -- Compensation to employee -- Suit for recovery of compensation -- Assessment of damages – Courts below assessed the damages on the basis of principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Keeping in view the age, income and number of dependents of the deceased and by applying adequate multiplier of ‘14’, an amount of Rs.20,15,600/- was awarded as compensation, to be paid by the Insurance company along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till its realisation – No exception can be taken to the assessment of compensation on the basis of principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as done by the Courts below. Paramjit Kaur’s case 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 772 (P&H DB) relied -- No ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8, 14-17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 397, 482 – Expeditious decision in revision -- Application seeking summoning of additional accused dismissed – Revision against dismissal order pending -- Trial is at fag end --  Ld. ASJ directed to decide revision petition of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within one month.

(Para 1-3)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Eviction petition -- Application for impleading more respondent -- In written statement, respondent-tenant asserted that the petition filed by the landlord is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties -- In order to obviate any subsequent difficulty, the landlord filed the application in order to meet with any future complication regarding the fate of the case -- Respondent and the persons who are sought to be impleaded, are members of the family -- Rent Controller erred in dismissing the application for impleadment -- Petitioner is entitled to file a petition covering all the aspects -- Petitioner's application for impleadment shall stand allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13A -- Transfer of divorce petition – Jaipur to Dehradun -- Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the case mainly on the ground of her precarious mental health condition and her inability to travel from Dehradun to Jaipur which is about 530 Kms away, to attend the proceedings of the case filed by the respondent-husband -- Taking into consideration the hardships which are likely to be faced by the petitioner-wife transfer petition allowed.

(Para 1-5)

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 -- If the petitioner is not granted one more opportunity to file his written statement, he would suffer irreparable loss which in turn would result in miscarriage of justice – For just and proper adjudication of the case, one last effective opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement granted without issuing noticed to respondents subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1/plaintiff.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18 – Maintenance in two proceedings -- Appellant-wife has been granted two separate maintenance claims i.e. one at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month by the JMIC u/s 125 Cr.P.C., and the second at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month by the Civil Judge, Senior Division u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Appellant-wife looking after her two children born out of the wedlock -- High Court while passing the impugned order has held that the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, granted to the appellant-wife, will also include Rs.3,000/- per month granted to her u/s 125 Cr.P.C – Appellant and the two children cannot sustain with this meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- -- Held, such an approach of the High Court is totally erroneous and cannot be sustained in law.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 37 Rule 3 (5) --  Summary suit for recovery – Leave to defend – Condition to deposit admitted amount – If any part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit cannot be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in the court -- Defendants have not specifically raised any dispute with regard to the receipt of money nor have they claimed that after receipt of the money, they have repaid the same to the plaintiff – Conditional leave to defend the suit granted by ld. Trial Court with a direction to defendants to deposit an amount of Rs.11,50,000/ in the Court or to furnish cash security in the shape of bank guarantee for the aforesaid amount – No illegality.

(Para 15, 16)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 21, Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, Order 41 Rule 5 -- Execution of decree for specific performance – First Appeal and Stay application pending since 2019 – Objection to execution dismissed on the ground that there is no stay – Ld. Lower appellate Court directed to decide the application Order XLI Rule 5 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking stay on operation of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, on the next date of hearing -- Till then execution proceedings shall remain stayed.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Eviction of lessee -- Mesne profit – High Court has considered the fair rate of return @ 6.5% annually on the amount of Rs. 5.50 crores for which the appellant purchased the property in the year 2008, determining the monthly compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- – Aforesaid method cannot be accepted, High Court was required to undertake exercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises – Matter remitted back to High court.

(Para 7-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Non entitlement of relief – It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit -- The aforesaid cannot be a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC.

(Para 1)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Suit for specific performance – Readiness and willingness -- High Court non-suited the appellant-original plaintiff on the ground that as the post-dated cheque of Rs. 35 lakhs was returned which was towards part sale consideration and tendering the worthless post-dated cheque cannot be said to be tendering the payment and therefore, there was no concluded contract between the parties -- By observing so, the High Court has refused to go into the aspect of the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff – Held, at the time when the post-dated cheque of Rs. 35 lakhs was tendered the same cannot be said to be worthless cheque -- Post-dated cheque of Rs. 35 lakhs returned by the bank was with an endorsement i.e., “payment stopped by attachment order” as there was a raid conducted by the IT Department and the bank account was attached and therefore, the post-dated cheque was returned -- Therefore, the observation made by the High Court cannot be accepted.

(Para 4)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Suit for specific performance – Readiness and willingness – Framing of issue -- There must be a specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and before giving any specific finding, the parties must be put to notice -- The object and purpose of framing the issue is so that the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same -- On the aforesaid ground the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and refusing to pass the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell confirmed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned Trial Court to frame the specific issue with respect to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff.

(Para 4.1)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8, 11 –Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Civil suit -- Application for referring the matter to Arbitrator -- The provisions of Sections 8 and 11 of the Act are complementary to each other and there is no bar to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 11 (6) of the Act during pendency of the application u/s 8 of the Act.

(Para 3)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) -- Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 16, 69-A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 89 – Civil suit -- Settlement to refer the matter to Arbitrator-- Refund of court fees -- Refund of Court fee cannot be denied merely because the matter has not been settled before the Lok Adalat – Liberty granted to approach the trial Court for refund of the court fee in question and for availing the benefit under the Court Fee Act.

(Para 4-8)

A. Hindu law -- Ancestral property -- Both the Courts below concurrently held that there is no evidence on record to establish ancestor property – Pedigree table in itself is no evidence of ancestry, nor can it be the basis to decide ancestral nature of property which can only be established by independent proof including the revenue records/ jamabandis -- It has to be proved beyond doubt that the property was undivided property of a Hindu family of four generations -- There is no such evidence on record -- No ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below on this issue.

(Para 8)

B. Evidence law -- Attorney appeared as witness – Original attorney -- Plaintiff himself not appeared to testify in support of the plaint – Power of attorney holder/PW-4 failed to produce the original power of attorney on record -- Opportunities afforded, still  could not bring the original on record -- It was, therefore, held that photocopy of the power of attorney cannot be read in evidence -- As the plaintiff himself has not deposed in the case, therefore, no exception can be taken to the adverse inference drawn against him on this account.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of Divorce petition -- Kapurthala to Fazilka -- It is well settled that 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 – Case transferred.

(Para 6, 7)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36, 37 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Injunction simplicitor – Maintainability of -- Ratio of the judgment passed in Anathula Sudhakar’s case, Civil Appeal No.6191 of 2001, dated 25.03.2008 passed by the Supreme Court is that the relief of injunction simplicitor cannot be sought by a person whose title over the property is in dispute -- Plaintiffs’ title over the suit property was not in dispute, though the defendants made a deplorable attempt to dispute the same by concealing relevant facts from the Court – Therefore, the defendants cannot raise any plea based upon the judgment.

(Para 10)

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Proof of Will – Suspicious circumstances – Burden to prove -- Mere proving of a Will does not establish the same to be valid in law, in case the same is surrounded by suspicious circumstances -- The beneficiary is not only required to discharge his burden to prove the Will; but is also to satisfy the conscious of the Court that there are no suspicious circumstances or if there are any, to explain them is also on the propounder of the Will -- It is only when such responsibility is discharged by the beneficiary, the Court can accept the Will to be genuine.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Suspicious circumstances -- It is settled proposition of law that mere exclusion or dis-heritance of a natural heir while executing a Will is not to be taken as a suspicious circumstance as the very purpose of execution of a Will is to divert from the line of natural succession -- However, it has also been settled and expounded upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that any unnatural, improbable or unfair disposition made in the Will has to be considered as a suspicious circumstance.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Suspicious circumstances -- Respondent happened to be the legally wedded wife of deceased, neither the testator has recorded the factum of his marriage with the respondent in the Will; nor even her name has been mentioned therein -- More than that, no provision has even been made for her maintenance particularly under the circumstances wherein it has been established/ proved on record that the relationship between the husband and wife remained amicable throughout – From cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, one can easily see through that the testator’s mind was not free at the time of making disposition of Will.

(Para 9-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rule 2 – Death of plaintiff – LR’s (Legal Representatives) impleaded in appeal against interlocutory order – Failure to get impleaded LR’s in suit – Effect of –Original plaintiff-appellant’s father passed away during the pendency of the appeal, the legal representative was brought on record by the order of the Court in the appeal -- Such impleadment will enure towards the proceedings in the suit itself -- Failure to get the appellant impleaded in the suit itself would not be fatal to the continued prosecution of the suit -- Suit, therefore, must be proceeded with and it cannot be extinguished by virtue of the abatement.

(Para 11, 12)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 60(1)(i), Order 21 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(Para 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 55 Order 21 Rule 30  -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(Para 7)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 – Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(Para 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Transfer of restitution of conjugal rights case – Bihar to Maharashtra – Petitioner/ wife is unemployed and is dependent on her parents, coupled with the fact that three cases are already pending against the respondent(s) in the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra, Matrimonial Case pending before the Family Court, Bhagalpur, Bihar is ordered to be transferred to a Family/Competent Court at Nagpur, Maharashtra.

(Para 1-4)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 12 – Mesne profit -- There is no provision for assessment of mesne profits in a suit for possession without an enquiry in terms of the Order XX Rule 12 of CPC -- No such enquiry has either been conducted by trial Court – Held, no justification for the lower appellate Court to fix the mesne profits and direct the petitioner to pay the amount along with arrears.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 12 – Mesne profit -- Suit property was never rented out to the petitioner, nor had its rent been assessed -- Therefore, the concept of depriving the landlord of rent during pendency of appeal does not apply -- Respondent cannot claim mesne profits based upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 212.

(Para 11)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6 – Admission by parties – Withdrawal of admission -- Merely because the trial Court has not proceeded to pass any order or give any judgment having regard to the admission made, it affords no right to the party concerned to withdraw the admission -- Provision does not, either explicitly by necessary implication, permit the party making the admission to withdraw the same; it only enables the Court to make an order or give a judgment having regard to it.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6 -- Statement of admission -- Withdrawal of statement -- Once a statement has been made on solemn affirmation, it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.

(Para 7, 8)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 116 -- Arrear of rent – Provisional assessment of rent – Disputing Landlord’s ownership – Provisional rent was tendered without reserving any right to dispute ownership of the landlord – At the time of assessment of provisional rent also, no dispute about the ownership was raised by the tenants – Besides, after attornment they/tenants are estopped from disputing ownership of the landlord.

(Para 7)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Order 14 Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 25 -- Additional issue – Disputing Landlord’ ownership -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord  -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Said orders have attained finality – No occasion for the tenants to agitate the issue again before High Court – It is an abuse of the process of law – Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- It cannot by any stretch of imagination, therefore, be said that the Controller has “omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact” --  Therefore, provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable – Held, tenants could not invoke by filing the application, beseeching the Appellate Authority to frame additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord and refer the same to the Rent Controller for recording evidence thereupon -- Nor could the tenant file the other application Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing of issues -- Revision dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

(Para 9-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13, Order 22 Rule 2-B – Death of defendant  -- Legal heirs of defendant – Duty of Advocate -- It is the responsibility of the legal heirs of the defendant in a pending suit, to come on record -- An Advocate is only required to inform about the death of a party to the court.

(Para 1)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21, Rule 32 -- Execution of injunction decree – Delivery of possession -- Attachment of property – Civil imprisonment -- “Whether, while passing an order of delivery of possession in execution of an injunction decree, the Executing Court is required to record a finding that the Judgement Debtor has had an opportunity to obey the decree and he has wilfully failed to obey it?

-- Execution petition is maintainable only if the Court comes to a conclusion that the judgment debtor has had an opportunity of obeying the decree but has wilfully failed to obey it -- Both the parts of the sentence in Order XXI Rule 32 CPC are joined by the word 'and' -- Thus, both the requirements are mandatory and co-existent.

-- Under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, the Court not only has the power to order delivery of possession of the property but also power to attach the property of the judgment debtor and send him to civil imprisonment -- This is extra ordinary power given to the Executing court to get the decrees passed by the Courts implemented -- However, such exceptional powers should be exercised with great responsibility only after ensuring that there is material on the record which proves that the decree holder has shown the co-existence of the twin conditions laid down in Order XXI Rule 32 CPC.

(Para 1, 4, 7)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11, 13 -- Gram Panchayat Deh – Shamilat deh – Ownership dispute – Jurisdiction of civil court – Rejection of plaint -- Suit to declare the plaintiff owner in possession by way of adverse possession – Civil Court refused to reject the plaint on the ground that the property is not a shamilat deh land – Held, the question as to whether the suit property is or is not shamilat deh is required to be decided by the Collector and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been specifically excluded -- Plaintiff claims that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession -- Such a question exclusively falls within the domain of the Collector empowered under Section 11 of the 1961 Act -- Revision petition allowed, order passed by the trial Court set aside being unsustainable -- Plaint shall stand rejected -- However, the plaintiff shall have the liberty to file proceedings under Section 11 of the 1961 Act.

(Para 3-9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23, Rule 1 -- Withdrawal of suit -- Fresh suit for partition – Necessity of permission to file fresh suit -- Even in the absence of permission to file a fresh suit, a co-owner has a right to file a suit for partition even if his first suit has been dismissed on the ground that he did not implead all the co-owners as parties to the suit – It is not a decision on merits of the case -- In such circumstances, the permission granted is superfluous/ unnecessary.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23, Rule 1 -- Withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh – Power of Appellate Court -- Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC enables the Court to permit the party to withdraw his suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action -- Sub Rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order XXIII CPC envisages two different reasons for permitting the plaintiff to file a fresh suit.

-- Under clause (a), the Court can grant permission if it is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason or some formal defects.

-- Under clause (b), permission can be granted if the Court comes to a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit based upon the subject matter of the original suit or part of the claim.

Such power can be exercised any time after the institution of the suit -- There is no provision that such application is only maintainable before the trial Court -- First Appellate Court is a Court of fact and is empowered to decide such an application, if filed.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 80 -- Notice u/s 80 CPC – Suit against Government/ Public officer -- No claim has been made against the any public officer in the suit – Object of giving such a notice is to afford an opportunity to the Government/ public officer to reconsider the matter and to settle the claim -- The word “against” shall necessarily mean “a claim against” the Public Officer – When a suit is filed against public officer without any relief being claimed, no notice shall be required and even if the public officers are made as proforma defendants but relief is claimed, notice u/s 80 shall be required.

(Para 8-11)

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 3, 10, 15, 21 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 2(1)(e), 9, 14, 34 – Arbitration matters in Commercial court -- Whether in exercise of powers u/s 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the State Government can confer jurisdiction to hear applications u/s 9, 14 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upon Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District, contrary to the provisions of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act? – Held, the Act, 2015 is the Act later in time and therefore when the Act, 2015 has been enacted, more particularly Sections 3 & 10, there was already a provision contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1996 -- As per settled position of law, it is to be presumed that while enacting the subsequent law, the legislature is conscious of the provisions of the Act prior in time and therefore the later Act shall prevail -- There cannot be two fora with respect to different commercial disputes.

(Para 10,11)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Multiple cause of action – Civil suit – Limitation -- Suit can be filed within three years from the accrual of the initial cause of action, however, any successive violation of rights after institution of the suit would not give fresh cause of action to file a suit -- If the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation would commence from the date when the right to sue first accrued.

(Para 13)

B. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 44 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Consolidation proceedings -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Consolidation Authorities allotted 15 kanal 5 marla land of lesser value to the defendant as per his entitlement in lieu of 7 kanal 12 marla of standard land during consolidation -- Plaintiff till date has not challenged the order of Consolidation Authorities -- In case, the plaintiff was aggrieved by any such order, he should have challenged it before the authorities empowered under the Consolidation Act, which admittedly was not done -- Jurisdiction of the Civil Court barred -- Civil Court cannot derive jurisdiction beyond the statute by merely giving it a colour for a suit of declaration.

(Para 15)

C. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34, 44 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Mutation – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Mutation is only entered to update the revenue records and it not being a document of title does not confer any right on any person whatsoever -- Correctness of mutation cannot be challenged by plaintiff in a civil suit.

(Para 16)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Maintainability of suit for simplicitor declaration -- If the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, he cannot file a simpliciter suit for declaration and injunction without claiming possession thereof.

(Para 20)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rule 2 -- Abatement of suit – Death of one of plaintiff -- Where there are more than one plaintiffs, the entire suit cannot be held to be abated on the death of one of the plaintiffs.

(Para 9)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9(ii)(e) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 37 Rule 5 – Interim order by Arbitrator to deposit bank guarantee -- Commercial Court passed the order u/s 9(ii)(e) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to secure the amount in dispute, confirmed by High Court -- Held, unless and until the pre-conditions under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC are satisfied and unless there are specific allegations with cogent material and unless prima-facie the Court is satisfied that the appellant is likely to defeat the decree/award that may be passed by the arbitrator by disposing of the properties and/or in any other manner, the Commercial Court could not have passed such an order in exercise of powers u/s 9 of the Act, 1996 -- There are very serious disputes on the amount claimed by the rival parties, which are to be adjudicated upon in the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal – Impugned judgment and order, directing the appellant to deposit the amount of performance bank guarantees quashed and set aside -- However, direction given that appellant shall furnish an undertaking backed by the Resolution of the appellant’s company before the Commercial Court that in case any award is passed by the learned Arbitrator in arbitration proceedings, the same shall be paid/honoured by the appellant subject to the challenge before the higher forum.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Suit for cancellation of sale deed -- Issue of limitation – Rejection of plaint -- Suits filed after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deeds -- One suit was filed by the minor, which was filed in the year 2006, in which some of the plaintiffs herein were also party to the said suit and in the said suit, there was a specific reference to the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2005 and the said suit came to be dismissed in the year 2014 and immediately thereafter the present suits have been filed -- Thus, from the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, Court opined that by clever drafting, the plaintiffs tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation, which otherwise are barred by limitation -- Respective plaints are required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 2, 7.9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 14, Rule 2(1)(2)(b) -- Issue of limitation – Preliminary issue – Issue of limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts -- Provisions under Order XIV Rule 2(1) and Rule 2(2)(b) permit to deal with and dispose of a suit in accordance with the decision on the preliminary issue.

(Para 18, 26)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 136 – Execution of decree – Limitation -- Article 136 of Limitation Act applies only when an application for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court is to be filed.

(Para 20)

C. Pleadings – Misquoting/ not mentioning of provision -- Misquoting or non-quoting of a provision by itself will not make an order bad so long as the relevant enabling provision is in existence and it was correctly applied though without specifically mentioning it.

(Para 25)