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)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction – Observation therein – Effect of -- It is settled law that the observations made in the order while rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC or the appeal therefrom are only for the purpose of deciding the said application -- Suit is to be decided by the trial Court independent of the said observations in accordance with the evidence on record.

(Para 3)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151 -- Additional evidence – Rebuttal evidence -- Plaintiff-petitioner is setting up entirely a new case by way of leading additional evidence qua which there are no pleadings -- Jamabandi, which is now sought to be produced to show the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner, was to be produced in the affirmative as the onus was upon plaintiff -- Having not led the evidence in the affirmative, the plaintiff-petitioner cannot now be permitted to fill in the lacuna in the case by leading the said evidence as additional evidence --  Question of permitting the judgment to be produced as additional evidence qua which there are no pleadings would not arise.

-- Application itself is totally bereft as to why the said evidence was not led earlier.

-- There is not even a whisper that the plaintiff-petitioner was not aware of this evidence at the time of leading his evidence in the affirmative.

Application for additional evidence dismissed by Trial court – No fault, revision dismissed.

(Para 1, 4, 7-9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3, Order 43 Rule 1A, Section 96(3) – Compromise decree – Challenge to – Bar to appeal -- Proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 is not optional; it is the exclusive first port of call for any party on record who denies the compromise -- Order XLIII Rule 1-A does not create a new right of appeal; it merely enables an appellant, already before the Appellate Court, to attack the decree on the ground that the compromise should not have been recorded -- When the fact of compromise is not disputed, the bar in Section 96(3) is absolute.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3, Order 43 Rule 1A, Section 96(3) – Compromise decree – Bar to appeal -- Compromise terms signed by Counsels -- Challenge to -- Both decrees rest on written compromise terms signed by counsel who held unquestioned vakalatnamas -- Signature of duly authorised counsel is the signature of the party -- Decrees are therefore consent decrees within the meaning of Section 96(3) -- Appellant never invoked the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3; instead, she lodged Appeals from Orders on the footing of the deleted Order XLIII Rule 1(m) -- Appellant’s submission that allegations of fraud transform a consent decree into an ordinary decree cannot be accepted -- Fraud, want of authority or other vitiating elements are precisely the matters that the proviso directs the Trial Court to examine -- Unless and until that route is pursued, the statutory bar in Section 96(3) of the CPC remains operative.

(Para 12, 13)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3, Order 43, Rule 1A, Section 96(3) – Compromise decree – Challenge to – Maintainability of Appeal – The CPC, after the 1976 amendment, works in two distinct ways -- If a person was already a party to the suit, and denies that any lawful compromise ever took place, the CPC requires that person to go back to the Trial Court under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 and ask that Court to decide whether the compromise is valid -- On the other hand, someone who was not a party to the suit, but whose rights are hurt by a consent decree, may approach the Appellate Court in a First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, but only after obtaining leave -- Order XLIII Rule 1-A does not create an independent appeal at all.

(Para 15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 23A, 25, 27 – Additional evidence – Additional Issue – Remitting back of appeal – Permissibility of -- First Appellate Court is a Court of fact and law both and the application for additional evidence can be allowed -- First Appellate Court erred in remitting the matter back to the trial Court after framing additional issue and permitting the plaintiff to lead additional evidence -- First Appellate Court has neither set aside the judgment of the trial Court on merits nor it has formed an opinion that re-trial of the case is necessary -- Hence, the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court to the limited extent of remitting the matter back to the lower Court set aside and the first appeal is restored to its original number -- Court will proceed in accordance with Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC.

(Para 7-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100, 103 -- Regular Second Appeal – Scope of interference -- When the First Appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has considered the entire evidence and rendered a finding, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence just because another view is possible, when the view taken by the First Appellate Court is plausible and does not suffer from vice in law -- When the determination of the High Court is only by way of re-appreciation of the existing evidence, without there being any legal question to be answered, it would be axiomatic that not even a question of law is involved, much less a substantial one.

(Para 12.1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100, 103 – First Appeal -- Regular Second Appeal – Scope of interference -- First Appellate Court analyzed the entire oral evidence adduced by both parties, as well as the documentary evidence relied upon by either side, and dismissed the suit -- Authority to re-consider the evidence is available only to the First Appellate Court under Section 96 and not to the High Court in exercise of its authority under Section 100, unless the case falls under the exceptional circumstances provided under Section 103.

(Para 12.2)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Joint Family property – Burdon of proof -- It is a settled principle of law that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family -- The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property -- If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, then there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available -- That apart, while considering the term ‘nucleus’ it should always be borne in mind that such nucleus has to be established as a matter of fact and the existence of such nucleus cannot normally be presumed or assumed on probabilities.

(Para 13)

D. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 – Ancestral property -- For a property to be considered as an ancestral property, it has to be inherited from any of the paternal ancestors up to three generations.

(Para 14)

E. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Partition of ancestral property – Self-acquired property -- As per Hindu law, after partition, each party gets a separate and distinct share and this share becomes their self-acquired property and they have absolute rights over it and they can sell, transfer, or bequeath it as they wish -- After the death of the father, the joint family became unmanageable due to difference of opinion among the members and therefore, they decided that it was not good to stay together and partitioned the lands allotted to them -- Thus, the intention of the parties and the recitals in the partition deed establish that the parties wanted to go their separate ways and did not want the property to remain as joint family property -- Properties bequeathed through partition, become the self-acquired properties of the respective sharers -- The mere existence of sons and daughters in a joint Hindu family does not make the father's separate or self-acquired property as joint family property.

(Para 17-19)

F. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Joint Hindu Family property – Income and Sale consideration -- Expenses incurred for maintenance, marriage and education of children -- When the income derived from the joint family property or when a joint family property is sold and the sale consideration is utilised for maintenance and education within the joint family, the same are to be treated as out of necessity as it is the duty of every Kartha to do so -- Hence, it is sufficient to satisfy the legal necessity if the Kartha had sold the property and used the funds for upbringing the children -- That apart, under the customary practices and tradition, it is the father who performs the marriage of his children and therefore, the expenses incurred for that purposes are also to be treated as expenses out of necessity.

(Para 19.1)

G. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Separate/ self-acquired of a member of joint Hindu family – Abandonment of status – From the mere fact that other members of the family were allowed to use the property jointly with himself, or that the income of the separate property was utilized out of generosity to support persons whom the holder was either bound or not bound to support, or from the failure to maintain separate accounts, abandonment cannot be inferred, for an act of generosity or kindness, will not ordinarily be regarded as an admission of a legal obligation.

(Para 20)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6, Order 8 Rule 5 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 58 -- Judgment on admissions – Mandatory or discretionary -- Provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary and permissive -- They are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory -- If the court is of the opinion that it is not safe to pass a judgment on admissions, or that a case involves questions which cannot be appropriately dealt with and decided on the basis of admission, it may, in exercise of its discretion, refuse to pass a judgment and may insist upon clear proof of even admitted facts.

(Para 28-30)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6, Order 8 Rule 5 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 58 -- Judgment on admissions – Stage of – Right of -- Rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment where a claim is admitted and to pass a decree on such admitted claim -- This can be done at any stage -- Plaintiff may move for judgment upon admission by the defendant in his written statement at any stage of the suit although he has joined issue on the defence -- Defendant may apply for dismissal of the suit on the basis of admission by the plaintiff in rejoinder.

(Para 39)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6, Order 8 Rule 5 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 58 – Partial judgment/ decree on admissions – Since the object of sub-rule (1) is to enable the plaintiff to get judgment on admission of the defendant to the extent of such admission, he must get the benefit thereof immediately without waiting for the determination of “non-admitted claim” -- Sub-rule (2) makes it imperative for the court to draw up a decree in terms of judgment on admission which can be executed by the plaintiff -- In such cases, there may be two decrees; (i) in respect of admitted claim; and (ii) in respect of “non-admitted” or contested claim.

(Para 42)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6 – Judgment on admissions – A decree under Rule 6 may be either preliminary or final.

(Para 43)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Limitation -- Registered sale deed constitutes constructive notice to the world -- Partition took place way back in the year 1968 -- Suit is filed in the year 2023, i.e. after a period of 55 years -- Further, many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds in the year 1978 – It can be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds -- Plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years -- Trial Court rightly allowed the application of the defendants/appellants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred by limitation.

(Para 9-17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2, Order 23 Rule 1(3)(b) – Withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh -- Petitioner raised her grievance against execution of the gift deed  and consequent attestation of mutation, but no specific relief has been prayed to declare the gift deed illegal, null or void and not binding on the rights of petitioner -- Such omission entails consequences under order 2 rule 2 of the Code -- Petitioner cannot sue again in respect of the omitted portion of the claim -- Since, the plea which had been left from incorporation, could not be said to be alien to the subject matter or cause of action of the suit, even the requirements of order 23 rule 1(3) (b) were satisfied -- Suit is at very initial stage, issues have not been framed; therefore, no prejudice likely to be caused to the respondents --  Petitioner permitted to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh on the same cause of action.

(Para 11-19)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Regular Second Appeal – Condonation of delay -- State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation -- All parties, whether or not State under Article 12 of the Constitution, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude.

(Para 13)

A. CCS Pension Rules, 1972, Rule 56 – Regularization of daily wage employee – Pensionary  benefits -- Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and his services were regularized thereafter -- Petitioner shall be deemed to have retired on attaining the age of 60 years i.e. w.e.f. 12.07.2012 – A period of two years is to be added towards the qualifying service of petitioner to the period of 7 years 6 months and 12 days -- Petitioner rendered total eligible regular service of 9 years, 6 months and 12 days -- Petitioner has rendered more than 8 years of service though less than 10 years of service and for such reason his service is to be reckoned as 10 years, which makes him qualified for pensionary benefits.

(Para 11-17)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2—Constructive res-judicata -- Petitioner approached the Court in the year 2014 for grant of benefit of work charge/regularization -- His petition was not decided on merits and directions were issued to the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner -- It was on such consideration that the benefit of work charge and regularization was granted to the petitioner -- Once the petitioner got such benefit, he immediately made a claim for pensionary benefits in the year 2015 which was finally rejected by the respondents in the year 2019 -- Petition cannot be said to suffer from principle of constructive res judicata or Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC as the petitioner had sought the relief of pensionary benefits at the first available opportunity.

(Para 18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction -- Co-owner -- Electricity in name of defendant – Right of irrigation -- One of the cosharers of the tubewell cannot deprive the right of irrigation to the other co-sharer by unauthorisedly removing the common facility for irrigating the fields.

(Para 4)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Eviction petition -- Appointment of Local Commissioner -- No right vested in favour of a party to get the said commission issued and rather the same is an enabling provision that enables the Court to appoint a Commissioner if it is of the opinion that the same is required in a case.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 37, 38, 39, Order 21 -- Execution of decree – Time limit of 6 months -- All the High Courts directed to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions -- High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.

(Para 75)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c), 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Eviction of tenant – Execution of order/ decree -- ‘Landlord’ has been defined as a person, who is entitled to receive the rent -- It is not synonymous with the word ‘Owner’ -- If the tenants/ appellants have any dispute with landlord, then they have to establish their rights in the separate suit -- At this stage, only the Executing Court is required to deliver possession in favour of the decree holder.

(Para 3)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 2(b), 12 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 2(a) -- Contempt of Court -- Agreement to sell after Status quo order – Agreement to sell and acceptance of sale consideration despite the interim orders, held to be contempt of Court -- Respondent no. 1 to 4 held guilty of civil contempt, as defined under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Rule-2(a) of the Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- Unconditional apology tendered at the fag end of the proceedings, rejected – Fine of Rs.2,000/- on respondent no. 1 to 4 / Senior citizens each and costs of Rs.1,00,000/- as per Rule 21 of Contempt of Court (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984 imposed -- Agreement to sell held to be nonest and void ab initio, the same quashed and set aside.

(Para 17, 18, 28, 33, 34)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, 151, Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence in appeal -- Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC dismissed whereas the first appeal is pending -- Impugned order set aside and the First Appellate Court directed to consider the application for additional evidence afresh along with main appeal and at the time of deciding of the main appeal.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11 Rule 14 – Production of documents – Discretion of court -- Provision does not give an absolute right to a party to seek production of documents at any stage of the proceedings and the same is an enabling power with the Court.

(Para 4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 (7 of 1882), Section 2 -- Rejection of plaint -- Power of attorney – Conveyance already made -- Cancellation of attorney after 11 years -- Cause of action -- Power holder having exercised the authority conferred; to convey the properties in the name of the purchasers, the cancellation of the power of attorney will have no effect on the conveyances carried out under the valid power conferred -- Nor would it confer the person who executed the power of attorney any cause of action, by virtue of a cancellation of the power conferred by a subsequent document, to challenge the valid exercise of the power when it existed – Order of rejection of plaint passed by trial court affirmed.

(Para 8, 9)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C, 22E – Public Utility Services – Permanent Lok Adalat – Territorial Jurisdiction – Insurance policy was issued from Chandigarh Branch, whereas, the place of occurrence/ accident is in district Auraiya (Uttar Pradesh) – Application preferred by the petitioner before the PLA at Gurugram is a misconceived motion, on account of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority/Court of territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.

(Para 3, 4)