***

Striking off defence -- Non-filing of written statement -- Despite more than four opportunities and lapse of about eleven months defence was struck off, however, as no witness had been examined, one final opportunity granted to file written statement subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 -- Striking off defence -- Non-filing of written statement -- Grant of final opportunity -- Defence struck off by trial Court as petitioners/defendants failed to file written statement despite more than four opportunities and lapse of about eleven months from first appearance -- Though issues framed, no witness examined -- In facts and circumstances, one final opportunity granted to file written statement subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs.

(Para 1-3)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6, 17 -- Amendment of plaint – Impleadment as party – Sut for specific performance – Decree in favour of third party -- Plaintiff is the dominus litis -- In case they are not made parties and the petitioner is not permitted to amend the plaint, then in the said circumstances, the petitioner would be fighting a half lost battle inasmuch as since the suit property now stands transferred by virtue of the judgment and decree in a suit in which the present defendants/ respondents were parties -- Rights of the plaintiff/petitioner cannot be foreclosed on account of a subsequent judgment suffered by the defendants/respondents in favour of their relative GK -- Applications filed by the petitioner for amendment as well as for impleadment allowed.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal -- Scope of interference in a Regular Second Appeal is confined to substantial questions of law -- Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless it is shown that such findings are perverse, based on misreading of evidence or suffer from patent illegality.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 68 – Unregistered Will -- Will duly proved through attesting witness, scribe and unrebutted expert evidence regarding thumb impressions of testator -- Mere exclusion of natural heirs, unequal distribution of property or non-registration of Will not suspicious circumstances -- Non-registration of a Will is not a circumstance to doubt its validity --  No cogent evidence to show that the testator was not in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will -- Defendant did not examine any expert in rebuttal to disprove the thumb impressions on the Will -- Such omission assumes importance and lends further credence to the case set up by the plaintiff – Will, upheld.

(Para 8-13)

A. Joint possession -- Plaintiffs having lost their battle for title over the estate, cannot claim joint possession over the suit property.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second appeal -- Substantial question of law -- Misreading of evidence and going beyond pleadings breeds perversity constitutes substantial question of law -- Judgment & decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court reversed.

(Para 17)

***

Additional evidence (SPA) at appellate stage cannot be permitted in absence of due diligence and explanation for non-production at trial, as it would amount to filling lacunae – Application dismissed.

Registered Sale Deed carries presumption of validity – Allegation of fraud not proved as plaintiff failed to depose – SPA holder cannot depose on behalf of principal on personal facts – Adverse inference drawn – Appeal dismissed.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27(1), (1)(aa) – SPA in additional evidence at appellate stage – Permissible only on proof of due diligence and inability to produce evidence at trial despite best efforts –Applicant has not exercised due diligence and cannot be permitted at this stage to improve his case or fill up lacunae in his case by leading additional evidence -- Application dismissed.

(Para 1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 3 Rules 1 and 2, Section 100 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 -- Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 60(2) -- Registered Sale Deed – Presumption of validity – Allegation of fraud – Burden of proof – Power of Attorney (SPA) – Scope of deposition – Second Appeal – Registered Sale Deed bearing thumb impression and photograph carries presumption of truth and validity – Allegation of fraud not proved as plaintiff failed to step into witness box and led no evidence – SPA holder cannot depose on behalf of plaintiff regarding facts within personal knowledge of principal – Non-examination of plaintiff warrants adverse inference – Contradictory pleas regarding sale consideration – NOC supports case of defendants – High Court in second appeal has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Courts below – Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 15 to 32)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 – Regular Second Appeal -- Scope -- Applicability of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 vis-à-vis Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- In States of Punjab & Haryana, second appeals governed by Section 41 of 1918 Act and not by Section 100 CPC -- No requirement to frame substantial question of law. Position settled by Pankajakshi’s, (2016) 6 SCC 157, Kirodi’s  (2019) 11 SCC 317 = (2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14222 and Satender’s case, 2022 (12) Scale 92.

(Para 6)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 6 -- Family settlement – Spes Successionis -- Nature of property/ right to be included – Family settlement is not circumscribed to parties possessing an existing legal title in the property – Law recognizes that such a settlement may validly be arrived at even amongst persons having a semblance of a claim, a possible expectancy, or a mere chance of succession – It has been unequivocally held that even a prospective or contingent right to succeed to property constitutes a sufficient juridical basis for entering into a family arrangement -- Children and grandchild of the appellants-plaintiffs, possessed a legitimate expectation or chance of succession in the event of intestate devolution -- Consequently, the existence of such a potential claim furnishes an adequate legal foundation for the family settlement.

(Para 12, 12.1)

C. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Compromise decree/ Family settlement – Requirement of Registration -- Decree merely formalized and recognized the pre-existing rights which had already accrued to the respondents-defendants pursuant to the family settlement effected in the year 1989 -- In such circumstances, the decree falls within the category of declaratory recognition of antecedent rights and, therefore, does not attract the requirement of compulsory registration.

(Para 12.4)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Fraud / misrepresentation -- Pleading and proof – Allegations must be pleaded with specificity and particularity -- Full particulars of fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation has to be clearly set out in the pleadings -- Allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence must be pleaded with precision and specificity, detailing the manner, circumstances, and particulars thereof -- A bald and omnibus assertion, devoid of material particulars, does not satisfy the statutory requirement -- Moreover, such allegations are required to be substantiated by cogent, convincing, and reliable evidence.

(Para 12.6, 16, 16.1)

E. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 11 -- Transfer / Family Settlement – Minor is beneficiary -- Validity -- Family settlement, wherein a minor member of the family is conferred a share in immovable property, cannot be rendered null and void merely on account of the minority of such beneficiary -- Jurisprudential foundation of a family settlement is fundamentally distinct from that of a contractual arrangement inter se parties -- A family settlement, being an arrangement intended to preserve harmony, avoid disputes, and secure equitable distribution of property within the family, cannot be invalidated solely on the ground that one or more beneficiaries had not attained the age of majority at the relevant time.

(Para 18)

F. Mutation -- Nature and effect -- Mutation entries, being fiscal in nature, neither confer nor extinguish title -- Respondents-defendants derive their title not from the mutation, but from the judgment and decree -- Consequently, any error in the mutation entries does not, ipso facto, divest the appellants-plaintiffs of their rightful share in the property.

(Para 18.5)

G. Limitation -- Suit for possession based upon title – There is no limitation for seeking possession on the basis of title.

(Para 18.6)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Power of Executing Court -- Executing Court is empowered to decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree sought to be executed -- It has to execute the decree as it is without changing the same -- Jurisdiction of Executing Court is limited to give effect to the decree as passed and not to assume the role of a trial court so as to substitute its own view in place of that expressed under the decree.

(Para 24)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Power of Executing Court -- Executing Court has to strictly conform to the decree under execution and if the decree provides for reciprocal obligations, it must ensure compliance of those conditions by both the parties in pith and substance, unless the decree is a nullity.

(Para 27)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Power of Executing Court -- Compromise decree describes the portions of land falling into the shares of the parties -- Executing Court has to ensure that both the parties fulfil their obligations and exchange the land as per the decree and to see that the sale deed is executed as directed -- Merely for the reasons that exchange of some portions of the land may not be practicable for the reason that constructions on it are not as per the sanctioned map or that part of it has been sold off, are all immaterial.

(Para 30)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment in writ proceedings -- Necessary and proper party – High Court declined prayer of appellant to be impleaded in pending writ petition and also refused clarification/modification of interim order – Record showed that interim order passed in writ petition was relied upon by municipal authorities while dealing with appellant’s case and revised building plans were rejected on footing that operation of the 2025 Rules had been kept in abeyance – Held, where a person is directly and demonstrably affected by an interim order passed in writ proceedings, such person cannot be shut out merely because he was not an original party – At the least he is a proper party whose presence enables Court to effectively adjudicate consequences of its own order – High Court erred in holding that appellant had no lis – Order refusing impleadment set aside – Appellant directed to be impleaded in writ petition.

(Paras 7-18)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Writ – Impleadment of Necessary/ Proper party -- Though proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not to be controlled by the technicalities of pleadings as in an ordinary civil suit, the principles underlying Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC continue to furnish sound guidance -- A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed -- A proper party is one whose presence enables the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon the questions involved.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3 – Affidavit of plaintiff in rebutal -- Suit for permanent injunction – Petitioner-plaintiff sought to place affidavit Ex. PW4/A on record by way of rebuttal evidence – Held, if the petitioner-plaintiff intended to lead rebuttal evidence, he ought to have reserved his right to do so at the time of closing his affirmative evidence -- However, no such reservation was made -- Consequently, the affidavit Ex. PW4/A cannot be permitted to be taken on record by way of rebuttal evidence.

(Para 2-8)

***

Amendment of plaint – Amendment seeking existence of Will w.r.t. suit property -- Validity of transfer deed is subject matter of suit property – Amendment allowed by trial court, interference in revisional jurisdiction is to be kept to the minimum.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Amendment of plaint – Revisional jurisdiction -- Validity of transfer deed is under challenge in the suit – Amendment sought to plead existence of 30 year old unregistered Will with respect to suit property -- Application moved at initial stage when no witness had been examined – Once both the issues are considered and decided, the ownership and rights of the plaintiff and defendants in the residential house would be finally and properly adjudicated -- Amendment allowed by the Trial Court -- High Court in exercise of power under Article 227 cannot act as a court of appeal and interference is to be kept to the minimum – Impugned order allowing amendment upheld and revision petition dismissed.

(Paras 2–10)

***

Eviction proceedings -- A co-owner landlord can maintain the petition alone and the tenant cannot compel impleadment of other co-owners.

***

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 – Impleadment of co-owners at instance of tenant – In eviction proceedings only landlord and tenant are necessary parties and a co-owner landlord can maintain eviction petition without impleading all other co-owners – Tenant cannot compel impleadment of other alleged co-owners and eviction proceedings cannot be converted into inter se title dispute between co-owners – Order allowing impleadment set aside.

(Paras 6-10)

***

Additional documents -- Public documents -- Certified copies of Jamabandi and mutations being public documents do not automatically entitle party to produce same at any stage of proceedings -- Requirement of due diligence must still be satisfied.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1-A, Section 151 -- Additional documents -- Belated application -- Defendant sought permission to place on record certified copies of Jamabandi for year 1973-74 and mutation Nos.236 and 239 after closure of evidence and at stage of final arguments -- Application did not disclose any reason preventing earlier production of documents -- Documents being public documents were within knowledge and accessible to defendant -- Due diligence neither pleaded nor established -- Belated application rightly rejected.

(Paras 15 to 17)

A. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(1)(2) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 6 -- Family settlement – Spes successionis -- Compromise decree -- Compulsory registration – Requirements of -- A family settlement may be arrived at even between persons standing in remote familial relationships -- A family arrangement entered into between parties having even a possible or semblance of claim in the property, when acknowledged and recognized in a decree subsequently passed by a Court, does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and, therefore, does not require compulsory registration.

(Para 13-15)

B. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(1)(2) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 6 -- Family settlement – Compromise decree -- Compulsory registration – Requirements of -- Judgment and decree merely recognized a pre-existing right arising out of a family settlement between defendant Nos.1 and 2 -- Decree, therefore, did not itself create any new right, title or interest in the immovable property but merely acknowledged and affirmed an already existing arrangement between the parties -- Consequently, such a decree does not attract the requirement of compulsory registration.

(Para 17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 136 -- Execution of decree – MACT award -- Limitation of 12 years -- Where the award dated 24.04.2000 was challenged in appeal and the FAO was decided on 14.01.2014, the execution petition filed on 16.03.2016 cannot be said to be barred by limitation -- When an Appellate Court passes a decree irrespective of the fact whether the Appellate Court affirms, modifies or reverses the decree passed by the trial Court, the decree of the trial Court merges with the decree of the Appellate Court – Executing Court rightly dismissed the objections regarding limitation, and the impugned order does not warrant interference.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 14 Rule 1, Rule 5 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Framing of issues – Additional issues -- Defendants specifically pleaded ownership and possession of the suit land on the basis of an exchange and sanctioned mutation, which was categorically denied by the plaintiff alleging the exchange to be illegal, null and void and vitiated by fraud -- Failure of the Trial Court to frame issues on such material propositions amounted to material illegality – Direction given to frame additional issues – Revision allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 12A -- Decree for specific performance – Deposit of balance sale consideration – Time limit -- It obligatory for the Court to specify, the date by which, the purchase money or other sum should be paid by the vendee or lessee -- If the Court had failed to stipulate any particular time period, then it is expected of the decree holder to deposit the same, within a reasonable period of time.

(Para 19, 25)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 12A -- Decree for specific performance – Deposit of balance sale consideration – Time limit -- Delay in deposit of balance sale consideration – Deposit was to be made within a period of two months, from the date of decree -- Trial Court decree challenged in appeal – Stay application was also filed therein, which was not decided -- Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed – An application for seeking deposit of the balance sale consideration file after the decision of the appeal, soon thereafter and by application of doctrine of merger, the appellate decree is to be given effect to, as the time limit is no longer an essence, for the execution of the decree, as such, earlier passed by the trial Court.

(Para 4, 26-29)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary Injunction – Co-sharers – Construction on joint property – Equity – A co-owner who has himself raised construction on a portion of the joint land cannot seek injunction to restrain other co-owners from exercising similar rights over the joint property – Principle that one who seeks equity must act equitably applies.

(Para 6.1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 5 -- Admission in earlier suit – Effect – Admission that suit land already stood partitioned and parties were in exclusive possession of their respective portions disentitles the petitioner from claiming injunction over the joint property.

(Para 6.1)

C. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Revision – Interference with appellate order – Additional District Judge has interfered with the trial court’s order on sound reasoning, no illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error -- Consequently, no interference is warranted in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The instant revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Para 6.2)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment -- Necessary and proper party – Dominus litis -- Suit for recovery of service charges – Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ Plaintiffs are not claiming any relief against the appellant :

-- No material to indicate that the relief, as claimed in the suit against respondent No.3, if granted, would be implemented against the appellant – Held, appellant is not a necessary party to the suit.

-- Appellant cannot also be construed as a proper party once it has failed to establish that it is a successor to the respondent No.3.

-- Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have instituted the suit are dominus litis and it is for them to choose their adversaries. If they do not array the proper and necessary parties to the suit, they do it at their own risk. However, they cannot be compelled to add a party to defend a suit against their wishes.

Decree, if any, passed in the suit would be binding only between the parties to the suit and would not infringe upon any right of a third party, much less of the appellant that is not a party to the suit.

(para 37-39)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 Rule 58, 89, 90, 91, 92, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Separate suit – Maintainability of – Third party rights – Adjudication of doctrine of lis pendens along with Rules 58, 89 to 92, 99 to 104 of Order XXI CPC respectively and Section 47 CPC is as follows:

(i) Section 52 of the 1882 Act embodying the doctrine of lis pendens would apply to suits where any right to the property in question is directly and specifically in issue. Whether any right in the property was directly and specifically in question in the suit would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The doctrine cannot blindly be made inapplicable to suits in which the plaint contains a specific averment that the mortgaged property be attached and sold in lieu of the decree or a charge be created on the property. If interpreted so, any judgment-debtor can render the decree incapable of execution by transferring his interest in the property during the pendency of such a suit.

(ii) Rule 89 of Order XXI CPC provides an opportunity to any person claiming an interest in the property sold or a person acting for or on behalf of the persons having such interest, another opportunity to save the property from the clutches of the sale. A sine qua non for setting aside the sale under this rule would be the payment of the deposit as prescribed therein within a period of sixty days from the date of the sale. For the purposes of this rule, a pendente lite transferee of the judgment-debtor would also fall under the ambit of the phrase “person claiming an interest in the property sold”.

(iii) Rule 90 of Order XXI CPC provides that the sale shall be set-aside if there exists any material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. Furthermore, such material irregularity or fraud must cause a substantial injury to the applicant under Rule 90. In other words, there must be a direct nexus between the material irregularity or fraud and the substantial injury caused to the applicant.

(iv) The words “material irregularity in publishing or conducting it” in Rule 90 would include any material irregularity or fraud occurring at a stage prior to the proclamation of sale as well, provided that the applicant did not have an opportunity to raise or could not have raised such a grievance at the appropriate time. Furthermore, the mere absence of or any defect in the attachment, by itself, cannot be a ground for setting aside the sale under Rule 90, unless substantial injury is proved. The applicant must make specific averments as regards the alleged irregularities or fraud, and convince the executing court that a substantial injury has been caused to him as a consequence.

(v) The absence of a saleable interest on the part of the judgment-debtor to the suit property cannot be brought in as a ground under Rule 90 of Order XXI CPC. Such a ground would squarely fall within the ambit of Rule 58 of Order XXI CPC, if the sale is yet to be confirmed.

(vi) Rule 92(3) of Order XXI CPC states that no person against whom an order under Rule 92 is made (either confirming the sale under Rule 92(1) or setting it aside under Rule 92(2) can institute a separate suit in that regard. However, there is a very narrow scope for a person to file a separate suit despite the bar under Rule 92(3). The reason for such a separate suit must be that the execution proceedings and the sale was without jurisdiction and therefore, a nullity and not binding on the plaintiff who has instituted a separate suit.

(vii) Having said so, before holding such a separate suit instituted by a plaintiff alleging that the entire execution proceedings was without jurisdiction and therefore, the sale was a nullity, maintainable, courts must be vigilant in ensuring that the plaintiff was not a party to the original decree or a representative of a party to the original decree, as stated in Section 47 CPC. If so, instead of filing a separate suit, such persons must prefer an application under Section 47 CPC. Upon any failure to do so, their separate suit would be hit by the bar contained in Section 47 CPC which specifically uses the words “and not by a separate suit”.

(viii) The term “third party” under Rule 92(4) would mean a party other than the judgment-debtor, decree-holder or the auction-purchaser and would refer to a party who has not had his right, title or interest vis-à-vis the property in question adjudicated under Rule 58, Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order XXI CPC respectively. To put it very simply, the term “third party” under Rule 92(4) would refer to a party who is extraneous to the original suit proceedings and the proceedings under Order XXI CPC, and who either has not had his right, title or interest adjudicated or having the opportunity to have his right, title or interest adjudicated, has not availed such a remedy within the required time. Such a “third party” would also be someone who falls outside the scope of Section 47 CPC.

(ix) Rule 92(4) is not a provision which confers any right to the third party to institute a suit for challenging the title of the judgment-debtor to the property which is subject to the execution proceedings. It is merely a procedural provision which states that such a suit must be instituted against the auction-purchaser, where the decree-holder and judgment-debtor would be necessary parties.

(x) When a party other than the judgment-debtor, including a third party, is dispossessed during the course of execution of a decree, the only remedy for such a dispossessed party would lie in filing an application under Rule 99 complaining of its dispossession. In such an application, all questions including that of the right, title and interest of the parties in the proceeding, to the property, would be examined by the executing court.

(xi) The words “may” used in Rule 99 along with the words “and not by a separate suit” used in Rule 101, must not be read to mean that a party who has been dispossessed has two options i.e., to either prefer an application under Rule 99 or to file a separate suit, the moment they are dispossessed.  This would defeat the underlying object of the amendment made to the scheme of Rules 99 to 104 respectively wherein the executing court has been specifically empowered to look into the questions relating to the right, title and interest of the parties, quite akin to that which would have been done by way of a separate suit. Once the period of limitation for preferring an application under Rule 99 lapses, the person who has been dispossessed in the course of the execution of the decree, including a third party, cannot file a separate suit to circumvent or by-pass the said prescribed period of limitation.

(xii) Rule 102 prevents the executing court from passing any order under Rule 100 if it is found that the applicant under Rule 99 is a transferee pendente lite of the judgment-debtor. This again, cannot be construed as giving leeway to such a person to institute a separate suit. Court say so for the simple reason that, even in the separate suit, the law would not look favorably upon a pendente lite transferee, and no relief of declaration of title and/or possession would be granted to him. His fate would be the same as under an application under Rule 99.

(xiii) Therefore, - First, the separate suit instituted by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively would be non-maintainable because they are representatives of the judgment-debtor and the bar envisaged under Section 47 CPC would squarely apply to their case. Secondly, having not availed the remedy under Rule 99 of Order XXI CPC within time, the separate suit instituted for the same relief(s) would be barred. Thirdly, even if the aforesaid two reasons assigned could be said to not affect the suit instituted by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively, they would still not be entitled to the reliefs claimed owing to them being pendente lite transferees of the judgment-debtor whose transaction would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.

(Para 256)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32(5) -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36, 37 -- Execution -- Decree for permanent injunction – Subsequent dispossession – Restoration of possession – Permissibility of -- Finding of fact was recorded that decree holder was in possession of the suit property, the same carried presumption of her possession as on the date of filing of suit till the date of its adjudication -- In any subsequent execution based on dispossession at the hands of judgment debtor, the non-mentioning of specific particulars in the shape of date or month of forcible dispossession was not of much relevance – Order for warrant of possession, upheld.

(Para 6, 10-16)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 5, Section 96, 100 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 -- Interim protection in Appeal – Permissibility of -- Just because the original suit came to be dismissed, that does not mean that in the pending appeal, the appellate court cannot grant appropriate relief -- Application seeking to maintain the status quo filed before the appellate court cannot be dismissed solely because the suit for specific performance stood dismissed -- Reliance placed by the first appellate court on Order XLI Rule 5, while declining to grant status quo, is grossly misplaced.

-- appeal is considered a continuation of the original suit, and the appellate court has co-extensive power to grant appropriate interim relief to prevent irreparable injury and preserve the status quo pending the final disposal of the appeal.

-- interim relief is designed to aid the main relief and ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous. It aims to prevent irreparable harm that might be caused while the case is pending final determination.

-- grant of appropriate relief is a discretionary power of the appellate court, and the same must be exercised judicially based on the well-settled principles of a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.

(Para 14-20)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 5, Section 96 -- First Appeal – Interim protection -- First appellate court can re-examine both questions of fact and law and may re-appreciate the evidence on record -- Its powers are as extensive as the original court’s, meaning it can reconsider the need for interim protection.

(Para 18)

A. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 21, 22E – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 47, Order 21 --  Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Permanent Lok Adalat – Award/ Deemed decree – Challenge – Maintainability of writ petition -- Every award of a Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court -- It shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute, and that no appeal shall lie against it – Award cannot be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding -- Writ petition challenging the award was maintainable.

(Para 8-10)

B. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 21, 22E – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 47, Order 21 --  Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Permanent Lok Adalat – Award/ Deemed decree – Objection in Execution – Writ -- Maintainability -- Treating the filing of objections in such execution as an “efficacious alternative remedy” for challenging the award is inconsistent with the statutory scheme -- Decree in such a case owes its force not merely to the CPC but to the special statute which deems the award to be a decree only for the limited purpose of execution -- Statutory structure is the same whether the aggrieved person is a party to the award or is a third party who claims to be affected by it -- In either case, if the validity of the award is to be examined at all, it is to be tested in writ proceedings before the High Court and not by expanding the scope of execution or by encouraging independent civil suits.

(Para 11-13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 21 Rule 6, Order 22 Rule 2, 3, 6 -- Execution -- Decree passed in favour of dead persons -- Nullity -- Where appellants in a appeal died prior to the hearing of the appeal and their legal representatives were not brought on record, the judgment and decree passed in their favour is a nullity and has no force of law -- Consequently, the trial Court decree revives and is executable, and its invalidity can be raised even at the stage of execution.

(Para 13, 14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Execution of decree -- Objections -- An objection petition under Section 47 should not invariably be treated as a commencement of a new trial -- Jurisdiction lies in a narrow compass -- Object of Section 47 is to prevent unwarranted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible -- There is a steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial which causes failure of realization of the fruits of a decree, unless prima facie grounds are made out entertaining objections under Section 47 would be an abuse of process.

(Para 97, 98)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Res-judicata -- Suit being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC or by res judicata, the trial Court rightly held that the same was a matter of evidence and the plaint could not have been rejected on the said ground.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Rejection of plaint – Ad-valorem court fee -- Petitioner was not an executant of the sale deed -- Once the plaintiff was not an executant of the sale deed and further the relief of possession had not been sought, there was no question of ordering the petitioner-plaintiff to affix the ad valorem court fee.

(Para 10)

***

Consolidation / clubbing of suits -- Scope -- Clubbing and consolidation of cases permissible where common issues are involved and parameters for such exercise are satisfied -- Purpose is to avoid multiplicity of evidence and conflicting adjudications.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Section 151 – Consolidation/ clubbing of suits -- Trial Court dismissing application for consolidation on ground that there is no provision for clubbing of cases and Section 10 CPC does not permit such course -- Trial Court has completely misdirected itself by returning the findings that there is no concept of consolidation or clubbing the cases -- Section 10 CPC relates to principle of res-subjudice and has no application to issue of consolidation or clubbing of suits -- Consolidation/clubbing of suits permissible to avoid multiplicity of recording of evidence and isolated adjudication having bearing on connected lis -- Impugned order set aside -- Application for consolidation restored for fresh decision on merits.

(Paras 5 to 8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment as party -- For impleading a person as a party, two conditions must be satisfied: firstly, that there must be a right to some relief against such person in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; and secondly, that no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such person -- Power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly but to advance the cause of complete justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

(Para 16)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment as party – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Applicant placed on record Mutations and Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 showing transfer of the suit land from the State Government to ‘J’ and thereafter to himself -- Several rounds of litigation, including writ petitions before the High Court, in which his alleged rights over the same land have been contested -- These materials were sufficient to give the trial court a prima facie basis to conclude that the applicant has at least an arguable interest in the subject matter of the suit and that his presence would facilitate complete adjudication of the dispute.

(Para 2, 16)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment as party – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Objection as to claim based upon fraudulent documents – It is a matter of evidence which cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of impleadment -- Impleadment order does not confer any legitimacy upon applicant’s title; it merely allows him to be heard so that the court's final decree, if passed, may bind all persons claiming interest in the property and avoid future litigation -- Apprehension that the impleadment will prejudice the plaintiff/ petitioner's rights is thus unfounded.

(Para 2, 17)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment as party – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction --Dominus litis – Argument as to Plaintiff/ Petitioner, being dominus litis, is free to choose his defendants, cannot prevail when the relief claimed directly affects third-party rights reflected in the public records -- Petitioner's suit seeks declaration of nullity of a rapat entry and correction of revenue records may have an impact upon any person claiming interest through existing entries or documents.

(Para 2, 18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Transfer of suit -- Suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court on 01.07.2025 is prior in time to the institution of the suit for infringement by the respondent no.1 on 07.07.2025 at Delhi High Court -- Jurisdiction at Delhi was invoked by the respondent no.1 by purchasing the product from an online portal and getting it delivered in Delhi -- Question of fact, law, and the issues to be determined in the suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner and the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no. 1 are substantially overlapping -- In the interest of saving precious judicial time and to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, it would be expedient to transfer the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no.1 pending before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court where the suit instituted by the petitioner for Groundless Threat of Infringement is pending – Transfer petition allowed.

(Para 10-12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8, Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 -- Second Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V CPC as amended by the Special Amendment under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 137 -- Non-filing of written statement – Cross-examination by defendant – Right of -- After the examination-in-chief of PW1 was closed, the cross-examination of Defendant no. 1 was taken as “Nil” on the ground that defendant had failed to file their written statement within stipulated time – Held, said reason is absolutely perverse and is contrary to the right of defence available to the defendant -- The purpose of cross-examination is to elicit the truth from the witness and impeach its credibility.

(Para 31)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8, Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 -- Non-filing of written statement – Cross-examination by defendant – Right of -- When the WS was not allowed to be taken on record, the denial of the right to cross-examine cannot be taken away by leaving the defendant in lurch and this has acted as final nail in the coffin to defendant’s right of defence – Written Statement allowed to be field subject to payment of cost to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and appellant/ defendant allowed to exercise his right of cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses.

(Para 31, 32)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22, 36, 37 -- Agreement to sell – Suit for permanent injunction -- Subsequent suit for specific performance -- Maintainability -- Earlier suit withdrawn without seeking any liberty to pursue subsequent suit for specific performance -- Plaintiff was entitled to sue for specific performance when he filed earlier suit for injunction -- Subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff seeking decree of specific performance was not maintainable being barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.

(Para 12-15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 7(1) – Review – Appeal -- No appeal lies from an order rejecting a petition for review – On the contrary, if the petition for review is allowed and the suit or proceedings is placed for rehearing, Rule 7(1) permits the party aggrieved to immediately object to the order allowing the review or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit, i.e., after rehearing of the matter in dispute.

(Para 23, 24)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 17 Rule 3 -- Closing of evidence -- Dismissal of application to lead and conclude evidence – Challenge to -- No cogent reason given by the petitioner to explain as to why in a period of 3½ years, petitioner has been unable to conclude his evidence – Very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording 26-27 opportunities to the petitioner -- However, the same cannot be misused to endlessly drag the matter to the unfair advantage or disadvantage of either party -- No ground to interfere in the impugned order – Revision dismissed.

(Para 1, 5, 12-16)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in prayer of suit – Petitioner/ Plaintiff dispossessed during the pendency of suit -- Petitioner earlier sought relief of injunction, but now, by way of the proposed amendment, he is seeking restoration of possession in his favour, on the basis of tenancy -- Such a relief sought by the petitioner would require detailed pleadings and independent evidence – Held, proposed amendment would fundamentally change the character and nature of the case -- Civil Judge has rightly declined the application for amendment of the civil suit.

(Para 10)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Mutation -- Already sold property – Appropriate remedy -- Revenue authorities refused to record name of the appellants after noticing the fact that the original person, through whom appellants-vendor claim right, had already sold his share and was not left with any land which could be transferred – Issues sought to be raised by the appellants cannot be examined in summary proceedings of mutation -- Remedy of the appellants would be to seek appropriate declaration from the competent Civil Court.

(Para 2-4)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Mutation Proceeding – Nature of -- Any order passed in summary proceedings of mutation remain subservient to a declaration granted by the competent Civil Court.

(Para 4)

A. Karewa marriage – Void marriage -- At the time of alleged Karewa Mariage between S and SR, wife of SR namely L was still alive -- It is settled law that second marriage, during subsistence of first marriage, is null and void.

(Para 16)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence -- Application for additional evidence by way of DNA test to establish paternity of the defendants No.3 to 6 -- Plaintiff had moved the said application three-and-a-half years after initiation of appeal -- Plaintiff had failed to explain as to why the said application for producing evidence in question was not moved during trial; and why the said evidence was not produced before the learned trial Court -- Needless to say, the said facts were in the knowledge of the plaintiff during trial -- However, he failed to exercise due diligence -- No error in the dismissal of the said application of the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the learned Lower Appellate Court.

(Para 17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 10, 11 – Return of plaint – Rejection of plaint -- If the Civil Court is of the view that the dispute being commercial in nature has to go before the Commercial Court then the plaint has to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC -- Entire plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 7)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Permanent injunction – Trespasser’ right – Claim as lessee -- For leasing out a Government land, the officials are required to adhere to the relevant statutory provisions -- Appellant failed to plead and prove as to when the lease was created in his favour and what were the terms -- It is not appropriate for the courts to protect possession of the trespassers while granting injunction against a true owner -- Property belongs to the Government -- Mere production of certain receipts evidencing the payment of certain amount without referring to the particular land would not come to the rescue of the appellant – Permanent  injunction declined by Ld. Appellate Court, upheld.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, 96, 100 – Res-judicata – Two suits – Comon judgment -- One appeal – Effect of -- Trial Court dismissed Civil Suit No. 44 of 2004 and decreed Civil Suit No. 95 of 2006 based on common evidence lead by parties after clubbing of the suits -- There is not even a whisper about findings rendered by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2006 in the grounds of First Appeal preferred against Civil Suit No. 44 of 2004 – Held, Ld. Additional District Judge was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred only against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2004 without assailing the same in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2006 -- Appeal preferred before District Judge as well as present appeal is barred by principle of resjudicata.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 2(d) – Consideration -- Past consideration is as good as present consideration --  Word ‘consideration’ has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which has a wider connotation and includes within its sweep not only the monetary consideration but even promises including promise to render future personal service.

(Para 13)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 201, 202 – Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), Section 3, 4 -- Sale by Will/ Agreement to Sell/ General Power of attorney/ Affidavit -- PW-1/ S K deposed that her brother/ A.K. was only a Class IV employee and on her request and on her behalf he applied for the house in his name -- A.K/ Brother executed an agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, registered Will and an affidavit – Hence, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 could not be invoked -- After the death of A.K. on 14.08.1984, his widow and children never made any attempt to pay the instalments -- All instalments were paid by S.K. and her daughter -- All the documents of the property have been produced by the plaintiff -- Hence, it is proved that there was sale of the house in favour of Ms. S.K. by A.K -- Likewise, the General Power of Attorney will not cease to have effect because Ms.SK has interest in the property in view of agreement and Will -- Case falls under Section 202 and not 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

(Para 13, 18)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 13 -- Agreement to sell of imperfect title – Effect of -- Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables the purchaser to claim specific performance against person with no title or imperfect title -- Clause (a) of Section 13 (1) provides that if the vendor has subsequent to any contract acquired any interest in the property, the purchaser may compel him to make good the contract out of such interest -- If there was any defect in his ownership, the same stood rectified on payment of instalment.

(Para 14)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Proof of -- Suspicious circumstances -- Execution of the Will proved by examining both the attesting witnesses – Despite lengthy cross examination, the defendants failed to impeach their credibility – Will is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances because of various documents executed by A.K. including agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, apart from the Will.

(Para 15, 16)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Section 96  -- Rejection of plaint – Appeal against – Temporary injunction – Legality of -- Where an appeal is filed by being aggrieved by the rejection of a plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court ought not to have granted an order of temporary injunction -- When the plaint itself has been rejected, it cannot be said that the appeal filed against such an order is a continuation of a suit -- Until it is revived / restored, an order of temporary injunction cannot operate against the defendant in the suit.

(Para 5)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), Section 2(8)(9), 4 – Rejection of plaint -- Benami properties -- Whether a property is a benami, has to be considered not in the light of Section 4 of the Benami Act alone but also in connection with Sections 2 (8) and 2 (9) of the said Act i.e. whether the property if benami falls in the exception -- It is only where the property is benami and does not fall within the exception contained in Sub-Section (9) of Section 2 that a suit may be said to be barred -- However, the issue whether the property is benami and is not covered by the exception, is an issue to be decided on the basis of evidence and not simply on mere averments contained in the plaint -- Defendants have to adduce evidence to prove the property to be benami -- Plaint cannot be rejected at the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 27-29)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Absolute property of hindu female -- Plea that plaint is hit by Section 14 of the Act -- No such specific plea was taken by the defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC -- Such a plea was never raised and argued before either of the courts below -- There is no finding by any court on the above aspect -- Defendants cannot be permitted to raise such a plea for the first time in the Special Leave Petition without there being any foundation to that effect.

(Para 30)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Absolute property of hindu female -- Section 14 of the Act simply provides that the property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as a full owner -- It does not bar or prohibit a suit in respect of such a property -- Therefore, in the absence of any bar contained in the above provision, the suit plaint is not liable to be rejected as barred by law.

(Para 31)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of Divorce petition – Pathankot to Gurdaspur – Generally, the Courts lean towards the convenience of wife, in case of transfer applications, however, it is not a thumb rule -- Various other circumstances coming forth, also ought to be taken into consideration -- Two sons are studying in B.Sc. (Agricultural) at Hoshiarpur, as well as in 10th class are in the custody of the applicant/ wife -- Applicant herself is working as a teacher -- Interim maintenance has been fixed to facilitate the applicant to bear the expenditure of studies of both the children -- Other weighing factor is distance between the two places, which is less than 40 kilometres and there are well connected means of transport on the said route – Transfer application dismissed.

(Para 9-11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, Section 47 -- Decree for possession with respect to a specific shop identified by the properties located in all the four directions -- Objector purchased the suit property, ten years after the decree was passed -- All the objection petitions are not required to be decided after framing the issues -- Prima facie, merit of the objection petition is to be examined by the Executing Court – Executing Court gave direction for registration of FIR against the judgment debtors and the objector -- FIR already registered by the decree holder will continue and shall remain unaffected – Objection petition dismissed, orders upheld.

(Para 2, 8-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of divorce petition – Rohtak to Jind -- Generally, the Courts give preference to the convenience of wife in the transfer applications relating to the matrimonial disputes -- Applicant is not having any source of earning and she is taking care of the minor daughter -- Besides the same, three cases arising from this matrimonial dispute, are already pending in the Courts at Jind and the respondent is making appearance -- Transfer application allowed.

(Para 6-7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17 A – Additional evidence in suit -- Order 18 Rule 17 A of the CPC which provided for production of additional evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence has already been deleted from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 -- Thus, there is no right to lead additional evidence.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17A -- Application for comparison through handwriting expert -- Suit for declaration and for possession in 2011 -- Reliance in the suit upon compromise dated 25.10.2010 -- In the written statement it was plea that the compromise dated 25.10.2010 was a result of fabrication -- Once the petitioner has taken the said plea in his written statement, then it was open to him to have led all evidence in support of the said plea till the time his evidence was closed – On 08.08.2023 i.e., after more than 12 years of institution of the suit, an application seeking permission for comparison through handwriting expert filed – After evidence had been closed, application cannot be allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 135-140, 145, 150, 154 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Electricity actionable matters -- Jurisdiction of Civil Court -- Purposive interpretation -- All the actionable matters become amenable for exercising of jurisdiction thereover by the statutorily created special authorities/ special bodies -- There is complete ouster of adjudicatory jurisdiction by the Civil Courts.

(Para 30-32, 34)

B. Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 126, 127, 135, 145, 154 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Theft of electricity – Jurisdiction of Civil court -- Not only in respect of Section 126 and Section 127 of the Act of 2003 but also in respect of the matters falling within the ambit of Section 135 of the Act of 2003, there is complete ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.

(Para 33)

C. Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 151A, 153, 154 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Investigation by police – Offences tried by the Special Courts – Summary trial – Cross-examination of witnesses – Permissibility of -- Powers of investigations conferred upon the investigating officers serving in the police stations stems from the mandate enclosed in Section 151-A -- Reports prepared u/s 173 Cr.P.C., are to be filed before the Special Courts – Even a summary trial, does require the assigning of an opportunity to the accused to make effective cross-examination(s) upon the prosecution witnesses, as right to fair trial becomes envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 39-41)

D. Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 135, 154 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Theft of electricity – Civil liability – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Only pursuant to a binding and conclusive verdict of conviction becoming made by the Special Court, vis-a-vis the errant consumer, the Special Court in terms of sub-Section (5) of Section 154 of the Act of 2003, shall proceed to determine the compensation amount to be paid by the consumer concerned, to the supplier.

(Para 44)

E. Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 152, 154(5), 155 – Composition of offence – Civil liability -- Makings of composition(s) of an offence in terms of Section 152 of the Act of 2003, would tantamount to acceptance of the guilt by the errant consumer -- Post the making of an order of composition, if the compounding fee, does not also cover the civil liability, the Court concerned may proceed to determine the civil liability against the errant consumer.

(Para 48)

F. Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 135, 154 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Theft of electricity – Prosecution in Special court – Acquittal – Compensation for malicious prosecution – Jurisdiction of civil court -- There is no remedy to the accused, to post the making of a binding and clinching verdict of acquittal by the Special Court -- As such, in respect of the claim of malicious prosecution, a suit in the said regard can be laid before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

(Para 53)

G. Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 145 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Jurisdiction of High Court – Judicial review -- Jurisdiction of the High Courts to issue writs of various genres, is a constitutionally invested power, and, the said power is an in-segregable component of judicial review of administrative actions, or of the quasi-judicial actions, besides is the basic structure of the constitution -- As such, the power of judicial review of High Courts cannot be snatched even through the occurrence of Section 145 in the Act of 2003.

(Para 54)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 1 – Withdrawal of suit for declaration -- Abandonment of claim – Plaintiff seeking same relief without seeking permission to file fresh one at the time of withdrawal earlier not maintainable – Having abandoned the main claim, plaintiff cannot maintain suit for consequential relief of possession – Plaintiff rightly non-suited by invoking Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC.

(Para 12-14)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- It may be true that Order 7 Rule 11 even though authorizes the Court to reject a plaint on failure on the part of the plaintiff to disclose a cause of action but the same would not mean that the averments made therein or a document upon which reliance has been placed although discloses a cause of action, the plaint would still be rejected on the ground that such averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit.

(Para 17)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Plaint is not to be looked in isolation distinct from the documents relied upon with the plaint.

(Para 17)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – “does not disclose the cause of action” -- The phrase “does not disclose the cause of action” has to be very narrowly construed -- Rejection of plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences -- This power therefore has to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and ought to be used only when the Court is absolutely sure that plaintiff does not have any arguable case at all.

(Para 18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Eviction petition under rent law -- Amendment of reply – Due diligence – Trial is at fag end -- Case was fixed for arguments, but the arguments were not addressed, even after availing almost 10 opportunities and only thereafter,  the application was filed -- Respondent not able to show that in spite of due diligence, the respondent could not raise the pleas before the commencement of the trial – Proposed amendment application is not bonafide and is only a malicious attempt on the part of the respondent-tenant to prolong the lis – Application for amendment of reply dismissed.

(Para 13-18)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17 – Recall/ further examination of witness – Stage of – Scope of -- If it appears to a court trying the suit at any stage of the proceedings that it is necessary to recall and further examine a witness it can always do so -- This power can be exercised even at the stage of writing a judgment by the court -- Power is to be used for removing ambiguities, for clarifying the statement and not for the purposes of filling up the lacuna in a party's case -- Power can be exercised by the Court at its own initiative and may even be so done at the instance of a party.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17, Section 151 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 165 -- Recall/ further examination of witness – Cross-examination – Permissibility of -- Section 165 of the Evidence Act provides that a Judge may in order to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases in any form at any time of any witness about any fact relevant -- If the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 are read along with the provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act it is clear that the power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the court trying the suit -- The parties to the suit cannot take any objection to the question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine any witness without the leave of the court -- If circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to re-call a witness for examining, cross-examining or re-examining can be granted by a Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C.

(Para 7, 10)