Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 27, Order 5 Rule 20 -- Service through WhatsApp/ E-mail -- Prayer seeking direction to effect service upon the respondents by email and whatsapp – Applicant permitted, would furnish an affidavit to the effect that the email and whatsapp numbers are correct and that email sent has not bounced back as well as to take a screen-shot of the service of the summons through whatsapp upon both the respondents.

(Para 1-3)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 8, 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Dismissed in default – Restoration of – Delay in application – Trial Court adopted hyper-technical approach while dismissing the applications -- Rules of procedure provisions of law are meant to advance ends of justice -- Courts while dealing with such like matters should endeavour to see that a lis is decided on merits rather than non-suiting a party on technical grounds -- If a litigant is grossly negligent and casual in his approach with regard to the litigation in which he is involved, then he does not deserve any sympathy or leniency for the default committed by him with regard to putting in appearance in the Court -- However, if sufficient reasons are given for non-appearance, then a very rigid and technical view in the matter should not be taken.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 8, 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Dismissed in default – Restoration of – Delay in application – Plaintiffs are Non-Resident Indians and are of very old age -- They have rendered a plausible and satisfactory explanation for their non representation in the Court, when the case was dismissed for non-prosecution -- Trial Court should have considered the prayer of the plaintiffs to get the suit restored by condoning the delay in filing of the application sympathetically -- Claim ought to be adjudicated on merits rather than being rejected for technical reasons – Revision petition accepted; the impugned order set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court -- Trial Court may allow the applicants to lead evidence in support of their contentions, if so desired and then after hearing learned counsel for the applicants, a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of observations made in this order be passed.

(Para 8)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession -- Co-sharer’s possession – Nature of -- Possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be possession of all, unless and until the said co-sharer can establish exclusive possession with the intention to oust the right of the other co-sharer -- Appellants has not been able to point out any evidence, which shows ouster – Appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.

(Para 1, 4-6)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- SLP against review order – Maintainability of -- SLP would not lie against only a review order. Yashwant Singh Negi’s case (2013) SCC online 308 relied.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Review after 56 years 6 days -- One can find no error apparent after 50 years for the Court to exercise the jurisdiction of review – It is an abuse of process of law and complete wastage of judicial time – SLP dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-.

(Para 5, 6)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B – Constitution of India, Section 227 – Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six month period for second motion -- It is a case of broken marriage between the spouses with little chances of their resuming cohabitation and living together -- Spouses are stated to have settled all the issues between them in an amicable manner and asking them to wait for a period of six months shall only amount to prolong their agony -- Petition accepted, parties to move an application for preponing the date of hearing and then the Court may pass appropriate order in light of the order passed in the revision petition.

(Para 9, 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Suit challenging gift deed – Defendant executed lease deed – Amendment of plaint – Revisional jurisdiction -- Held, any transaction with respect to the suit property during the pendency of the suit is governed by the principle of lis pendens -- Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ordinarily prohibits the amendment of the pleadings after the trial has commenced -- Trial has already made substantial progress -- Any transaction between the defendants and third party is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, particularly, when these are during the pendency of the suit -- Hence, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

(Para 3, 6)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – SARFAESI proceedings – Challenge in civil suit -- Rejection of plaint – Bank’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was allowed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Appeal against the said order was allowed by learned Additional District Judge – Where it cannot be disputed that an action under the Securitisation Act is based upon creation of an equitable mortgage jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred – Revision allowed, and impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge set aside, order passed by the trial Court is restored.

(Para 1,10,11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 20 – Substituted service – Local proclamation – Beat of drum -- Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh added a proviso to O 5 R 20 CPC which enables the Court to direct substituted service in such a manner as the court may deem fit -- Court after examining the various aspects, ordered service of the defendants through local proclamation (by beat of drum) and pasting of notice -- Case of the defendants themselves that they have shifted to Dubai -- Hence, there is sufficient compliance of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC.

(Para 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in the prayer of plaint -- Challenge to the amendment can only be made in case any of the party feels aggrieved on the ground that the said amendment is causing prejudice -- In the absence of any prejudice being pleaded or argued/ proved before High Court, the allowing of amendment of the prayer clause by the trial Court cannot be treated as arbitrary or beyond jurisdiction.

(Para 3)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Shamilat deh – Writ jurisdiction -- If the proprietors claim that the Shamilat land has never been reserved/used for common purposes, they can get their title decided from the Civil Court -- Writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. Jai Singh’s case 2003(2) PLR 658 relied.

(Para 3)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Transfer petition – Ground of territorial jurisdiction – Scope of -- Suit for infringement of trade mark as also copyright infringement – Court find no scope of going into the question of as to whether the Court in which the suit is instituted has territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the suit or not in a petition for transfer of a suit invoking Section 25 of the CPC -- This point is required to be urged before the Court in which the suit is pending -- Plea of transfer of the said suit declined.

(Para 1, 2)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 10 – Delay in written statement -- Court has the power and jurisdiction to accept written statement beyond the period of 90 days in appropriate cases -- Petition was listed for 23.08.2018 was adjourned on 21.08.2018 for 28.09.2018 as the presiding officer was availing casual leave -- Written statement was clearly ready on the said date -- Landlord has yet to lead evidence – Petitioner/tenant shall suffer irreparable loss and manifest injustice, in case, he is not permitted to file written statement and his defence is struck of -- Written statement of the petitioner should be taken on record.

(Para 13-15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Pendency of Suit for 26 years – Early decision of suit -- A suit is pending at the first stage, and the Courts have to decide the appeal and the second appeals which would arise thereafter – Parties will cooperate for an early trial to the suit and the trial court will endeavor to give a quietus to the issues before it preferably in a period of one year.

(Para 12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Recovery suit decreed -- New plea in Second appeal – Permissibility of -- Defendants did not object to the passing of the decree on the ground that no decree could be passed against defendants no.2 and 3, personally -- During hearing of the first appeal, plaintiffs did not object to the decree passed by the learned trial court on this aspect -- It would not be appropriate to permit the appellants to put forth new plea.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 152, 153 -- Correction in pleadings after judgment – Permissibility of -- Application dismissed on the ground that such amendment cannot be allowed because the entire evidence had been led on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings – Held, once the court comes to a conclusion that the clerical or arithmetic mistake has crept in due to any accidental slip or omission, the same can be permitted to be corrected not only in the pleadings but also in the evidence as well as in the judgment and the decree passed -- Section 153 CPC further enables the court to amend any defect or error in any proceedings in a suit – Held, Ld. trial court was required to record the finding as to whether such error was result of clerical or arithmetic mistake or not – Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the scope of an application filed u/s 152 CPC in a correct perspective – Impugned order set aside with a direction to the learned trial court to re-decide the application in accordance with law.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 15 Rule 5 -- Mesne profit – Denial of possession – Stage of – Defendant-petitioner is canvassing that it had already vacated the suit premises and is, therefore, not liable to pay any mesne profits – However, there is no assertion by the defendant-petitioner in it’s written statement that it had handed over possession of the suit premises on such and such date to the plaintiffs-respondents – Nothing on record to show that the defendant-petitioner had handed over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs-respondents – Once the defendant-petitioner has not denied in it’s written statement that it is in possession of the suit premises it cannot take a contrary stand merely to avoid paying the mesne profits.

(Para 18)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- 50% amount in fixed deposits – Revision against -- All the claimants are major by age; having lived a considerable number of years of social life -- While lying in F.D., the money may not generate the same additional value as it can create through a business enterprise or other means of income, which can be created through this money -- Petition allowed, order passed by the Court below; to the extent it has retained the 50% of the amount in the fixed deposits set aside -- Hence, entire amount ordered to be released to the petitioners, in accordance with law.

(Para 2-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte proceedings – Setting aside of -- Defendant is a private limited company -- On the basis of notice sent through registered cover and report of the postman regarding refusal, the defendant was proceeded ex parte in the suit -- Postman has not been examined in evidence -- Plaintiff knew that the Director of the defendant-Company works in Paras Hospital, Gurugram, however, no effort was made to serve the defendant on that address -- Summons were served at the place of an under construction building -- Plaintiff itself was carrying on with the construction work on the aforesaid building – Ld. trial court allowed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC -- No ground to interfere with the order.

(Para 2)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of decretal amount – Warrant of arrest -- As per the provisions of Order 21 Rule 37 CPC, show cause notice is required to be issued to the Judgment Debtors to show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison -- As per Sub-Clause 2 of Rule 37 of Order 21, it has been stipulated that where appearance is not made in obedience to the notice, the Court shall, if the Decree Holder so requires, issue a warrant for the arrest of the Judgment Debtor.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of decretal amount – Conditional warrant of arrest -- Show cause notice was issued and, the petitioners were both served and petitioner No.1 appeared and sought time to make payment and thereafter, stopped appearing – In case the payment is made as per the calculation sheet, then the Judgment Debtor/petitioner No.2 is not to be arrested and it is only in case the payment is not made that he has to be arrested and produced before the Court -- Thus, the procedure adopted by the Executing Court for the issuance of conditional warrant of arrest is absolutely legal and in accordance with law.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 30 -- Execution of decretal amount -- Simultaneous attachment of property and detention in prison – Power of -- As per the provision of Order 21 Rule 30 CPC, both the procedure with respect to attachment and also detention in prison can be taken against the petitioners/Judgment Debtors either individually or simultaneously -- Even in a situation where the amount is partly recovered by attachment and sale, for the recovery of balance amount in any case, the detention in civil prison can be ordered.

(Para 13)

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 115 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Non-disposal of revision/stay – Writ petition against --  Revision petition pending has neither been listed nor any orders on stay application passed -- It would be suffice to direct the respondent No. 1 to dispose off the revision petition including stay application, preferably, within a period of two months -- In the meanwhile, no order adverse to the interest of the petitioner shall be passed by the respondents.

(Para 2-4)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Daily diary report – Evidential value --Contends that as per daily dairy report, the accident took place as a stray dog suddenly came on the road and therefore, the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be negligent – Held, daily dairy report was entered on the statement of respondent No.6, who was, at the relevant time, driving the motorcycle he cannot be expected to admit his negligence – In support of the claim petition, eyewitness has appeared before the Court to depose, he has been thoroughly cross examined by putting searching questions -- His deposition has been found creditable by the Tribunal -- Hence, the contention is without substance.

(Para 4-6)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Pleadings of negligence – Requirement of -- Contention that deceased was not wearing helmet while riding on the pillion of a motorcycle, hence amount payable by the insurer is liable to be reduced on account of contributory negligence of the deceased – Held, Insurance company has neither laid any foundation in the pleadings nor led evidence in support thereof -- Insurance company while filing the written statement did not plead that deceased was not wearing the helmet -- Still further, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove this fact and also failed to raise this point before the Tribunal -- Still further, insurance company has failed to draw the attention of the Court to the cross examination of eye-witness on this aspect -- In such circumstances, the argument of insurance company do not deserve acceptance.

(Para 4, 7)

A. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(vi) -- Succession after death – Suit for declaration -- Compromise beyond suit property – Registration of – Requirement of -- Whether a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members requires compulsory registration in terms of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 – Parties are the sons of deceased – Compromise was between the two brothers consequent to death of their father and no right was being created in praesenti for the first time, thus not requiring compulsory registration.

(Para 7, 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3 -- Suit for declaration -- Compromise beyond suit property – Permissibility of --  Compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and is thus a legal settlement.

(Para 8, 9)

Letters Patent Appeal -- Status-Quo order by learned Single Judge – Vacation of stay -- Application for vacation of stay ordered to be heard alongwith main case – Held, there is no application of mind with regard to the factum as to whether the order passed initially requires to be continued or not, nor as the aspect with regard to the grounds and the reasons mentioned in the application for vacation of stay -- It would be appropriate that the Court takes up the matter and decides the said application at the first instance.

(Para 4)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Additional evidence -- Only reason pleaded in the application is that the award would cause wrongful loss to the appellant/insurance company -- Reason does not fulfill the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Insurance company has taken a stand that the claimants in collusion with the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have filed the claim petition, whereas on the other hand, now the insurance company wants to examine the driver – Ld. Tribunal had given sufficient opportunities to the driver and the owner as well as to the insurance company to lead their evidence but they failed to do so -- Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence dismissed.

(Para 7)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Plea of collusion – Proof of -- Insurance company has not led any evidence to prove its plea of collusion between the claimants on the one hand and the owner and driver on the other hand – No ground to interfere in the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is made out -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction against co-sharer – Exclusive possession – Pleading of – Application dismissed/ Appeal also dismissed – Revision against -- Petitioner nowhere pleaded in his suit that he is in exclusive possession of the suit property – Petitioner/ Plaintiff had relied on electricity bills, photographs of the house, gas connection, pass book etc. -- Respondent-defendants had placed on record electricity bills with payment receipts -- As the exclusive possession of the petitioner had not been pleaded and not been established there appears to be no ground to interfere with the orders of the Courts below -- Interest of the petitioner has been adequately protected by the observation that the defendant-respondents cannot claim any benefit or compensation for any construction made by them during the pendency of the suit and the same would be at their own risk and responsibility -- A suit for partition between the parties is already pending -- Rights and shares would be determined therein -- No merit in the revision.

(Para 1, 2, 10)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – SARFAESI proceedings – Civil suit – Maintainability of -- Rejection of plaint -- After the Bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and issued a notice dated 09.08.2019 u/s 13(2) thereof, the petitioner filed the suit on 19.09.2019 wherein besides seeking declaration as to his share and challenging the Will, he has also sought injunction restraining the Bank from selling/auctioning the property -- The facts give a clear impression that the action has been taken by the petitioner with an intention to create a hurdle so that the Bank is not able to recover its dues – 'No Objection Certificate' has been given by him at the time the property was mortgaged with the Bank -- Section 34 of SARFAESI Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is required to determine by or under the Act -- Except for a vague assertion that the officials of the Bank are in league with respondent No.2, there is no pleading regarding fraud by the Bank -- Material averments in the plaint do not even remotely suggest as to how the action of the bank is fraudulent or absured or untenable -- Suit is barred u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Order rejecting the plaint affirmed.

(Para 8-13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte decree – Setting aside of – Stay of dispossession -- Due to lockdown, the application has been adjourned to 06.07.2021 -- Executing Court has already got registered a sale deed in favour of the respondent and now the efforts are being made to dispossess the petitioner -- Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed till next date of hearing i.e 06.07.2021 -- Trial court requested to take up the main application as well as the application for grant of interim on the date already fixed and pass appropriate orders.

(Para 2, 3)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in-relationship without divorce – Police protection – Right of – Matter referred to larger Bench -- Hon'ble Chief Justice requested to constitute a Larger Bench to decide the following questions:- 1. Where two persons living together seek protection of their life and liberty by filing an appropriate petition, whether the Court is required to grant them protection, per se, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case? 2. If the answer to the above is in the negative, what are the circumstances in which the Court can deny them protection?

(Para 2, 3)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Police protection petition -- Validity of marriage -- Scope of -- Present petition is only regarding the protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and, therefore, the validity of the marriage cannot be a ground for denial of such protection.

(Para 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 8, 9 -- Wrong noting of date by counsel – Suit dismissed in default – Restoration of -- Serious prejudice would indeed be caused to the petitioner in case the order under challenge is not set-aside -- Respondents will not be prejudiced in case the suit is restored to its original position, as the same is at very preliminary stage, wherein the pleadings are also yet to be completed -- Bona fides of the petitioner are borne out from the fact that he had deposited heavy court fee and had been diligently following up with his counsel -- Default, if any, is attributable to his counsel -- Said default of counsel for the plaintiff/ petitioner has been justified by giving cogent reasons – Without issue notice to the respondents/ defendants, revision allowed -- Civil suit ordered to be restored subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (i) – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Recovery suit as mandatory injunction – Advalorem court fee – Rejection of plaint – Prayer of -- Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the court is entitled to carefully examine the contents of the plaint to arrive at a conclusion -- Plaintiff has claimed a definite amount of Rs.6,35,00,000/- -- Suit is for recovery although, styled as suit for mandatory injunction -- Ad valorem court fee is payable according to the amount claimed – Order of lower court, directing to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the amount claimed  -- No ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 1, 10-15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Suit for permanent injunction – Appointment of Local Commissioner -- It is a settled law that in a suit for permanent injunction, the matter pertaining to the possession of the suit property would have to be decided by the Court on the basis of evidence, oral or documentary, which would be led by the parties and not through a Local Commissioner as it would amount to gathering of evidence.

(Para 4)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6 -- Oral partition – Admission of -- Legality of -- Parties to the suit implemented the same and are already enjoying their respective separate possession -- It is settled law that admission is the best piece of evidence which can be used against a party and since the plaintiffs have not disputed this fact that the oral partition took place -- Therefore, their claim for partition of suit property is without any merit.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Suit for partition -- Non-appointment of Local Commissioner – Right of – Onus to prove the claim raised in the suit was upon the plaintiffs, who not only failed to lead any evidence on this material issue, but admitted the defence of the defendants – Even otherwise, the appointment of local commissioner cannot be made to collect the evidence for a party.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Temporary injunction – Local Commissioner report showing the property measured 48'x74' and not 20'x80' and there was a dispute as such as to which portion of land the petitioner is in possession -- It would be a matter of evidence as to whether the petitioner is in possession of property measuring 20'x80' -- In absence of any material record having been produced before the Courts below the injunction has been declined -- No case as such is made out for interference, revision petition dismissed.

(Para 6-9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Manner of accident disputed – Counsel failed to draw the attention of the Court to such defence in the written statement and any discussion before the Tribunal on this aspect -- Driver of the offending vehicle did not appear in evidence, who could have deposed about the manner in which the accident took place -- Counsel also failed to draw attention of the Court to the cross examination of PW2, eye-witness on this aspect – Court  expresses inability to accept the argument.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Salary slip show deceased drew total salary of Rs.76,163/- -- Tribunal after deducting the amount towards AFPP fund subscription, AFPP refund and the amount of income tax came to income of the deceased as Rs.63,182/- per month, of which annual income works out to Rs.7,58,184/- per annum – Deceased was 39 years of age at the time of his death, therefore, 50% addition of actual salary on account of future prospects made out -- Tribunal applied 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, who has left behind four dependents -- Tribunal has arrived at a figure of Rs.8,52,957/- as annual dependency -- No error to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Car was on hire – Pleadings of – Non-framing of issue – Effect of -- No evidence that the car was being plied on hire at the relevant time -- Insurance Company did not plead this fact in its written statement -- Consequently, the Tribunal did not frame any issue on this aspect – Held, Insurance Company has failed to lay any foundation by pleading the aforesaid fact and thereafter, corroborate the same by leading any evidence -- Hence, the contention is rejected.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A -- Seven persons were travelling in the vehicle whereas the registered seating capacity of the vehicle is of five only – Held, Insurer is liable to the extent of persons permitted under the carriage permit – Vehicle was permitted to be occupied by five persons, only five claim petitions were filed -- No ground to admit the appeals. Anjana Shah’s (2007) 7 SCC 445 & KM Poonam’s case (2011) 2 PLR 477 relied.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 14 -- Agreement to sell – Property already mortgage with bank – Criminal proceedings initiated – Effect on civil rights -- Merely because the plaintiff had also preferred criminal proceedings on the ground that the accused had taken bank loan from Bank but had entered into an agreement with him to sell the property, and he had been cheated, would not be a ground to deny the benefit of the decree to him – Appellant/accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in criminal proceedings – Suit decreed by civil court, upheld.

(Para 1, 13)

B. Evidence beyond Pleadings – Permissibility of -- It is settled principle that evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be taken into consideration.

(Para 17)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 14, 16(1)(c) – Specific performance of agreement -- Readiness and willingness – Earnest money and additional amount of Rs.8.5 lacs paid -- Plaintiff prepared D.D. of Rs.13,50,000/-, balance consideration before the cut-off date and purchased stamp papers worth Rs.1,54,000/- -- Filing of the suit was also within a month and a half after serving a legal notice asking the appellant to execute the sale deed -- All these factors combined would go on to show that the Courts below have justifiably decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

(Para 2, 18)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Evidence law -- Execution of agreement to sell – Willingness of -- Wife of the appellant opposed the agreement by approaching the police -- Appellant himself applied for NOC to sell the property --  These factors would go on to show that the agreement had been entered into for the sale of the said property -- Almost 1/3rd of the amount had been received in advance and therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend that the same had not been executed by him willingly.

(Para 19)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Misrepresentation – Undue influence – Proof of – It is settled principle that allegations of misrepresentation or undue influence have to be given in full and precise particulars and then duly proved under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC.

(Para 20)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B -- Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six months – Denial of -- Revisional against -- Marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken and now they have decided to part their ways, so that they both have an opportunity to live their lives in the manner they like and in the given situation -- Insistence of the Court below to wait to another six months would result in adding to their woes -- Revision petition allowed, Family Court, shall entertain the joint petition by waiving off six months period.

(Para 6)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 10-A -- Suit for specific performance – Delay and laches – Discretion of court -- A suit for specific performance cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of delay or laches -- Exception to this rule is where an immovable property is to be sold within a certain period, time being of the essence, and it is not found that owing to some default on the part of the plaintiff, the sale could not take place within the stipulated time -- Once a suit for specific performance has been filed, any delay as a result of the Court process cannot be put against the plaintiff as a matter of law in decreeing specific performance -- It is within the discretion of the Court, regard being had to the facts of each case, as to whether some additional amount ought or ought not to be paid by the plaintiff once a decree of specific performance is passed in its favour even at the appellate stage -- Escalation of prices cannot be the sole ground to deny specific performance.

(Para 14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 10, Section 151 – Written statement not filed within 90  days – Defence struck off – Inherent power of Civil Court -- Trial court allowed the application without recalling the earlier order vide which defence of the defendant was struck off for non-payment of costs of Rs.500/-, as well as, having not filed the written statement within the permissible period of 90 days – Held, Trial court is vested with inherent powers u/s Section 151 CPC to correct any mistake and/or recall its own order in the interest of justice, at a later stage, if the circumstances are made out.

(Para 1-3)

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 126, 127, 135, 145 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Theft of electricity – Assessment of electricity charges – Suit for declaration and injunction -- Maintainability of -- Civil Court will have no jurisdiction in respect of matters, which are within the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer u/s 126 or an appellate authority u/s 127 of the Act or an Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Act – Thus, what is barred is a challenge to an order passed by the Assessing Officer after complying with the safeguards provided therein – Held, if, the statutory safeguards are violated, which also results in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same can always be challenged before the Civil Court.

(Para 1, 10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Rejection of plaint -- Objection to proper court fee – Dismissal of application – Appeal/Revision against – Maintainability of -- No further appeal or revision at the hands of the defendants is maintainable.

(Para 1, 2, 4)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 1(i), 11 – Objection to drafting of plaint -- Rejection of plaint – Objection that plaint not drafted in accordance with Order 7 Rule 1 (i) – Held, matter can be examined by the court while finally adjudicating the suit.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 14 Rule 1 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 – Proof of Will – Onus of – Framing of issue – Onus was upon the plaintiff to get the issues framed rightly if he was wanting to set up the plea that the onus of the Will should have been upon the propounder.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 61 -- Son living separately – Exclusion of son in Will -- Admission of the plaintiff that he was residing separately for the last 35 years after his marriage would be reason enough for the testator to keep him out of the zone of succession.

(Para 7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Execution of order -- Revisional Court’s power -- Enhancement of compensation by High Court in Appeal was ordered to be invested in a FDR and the interest accruing thereon be paid to the petitioner/ claimant – Ordering any deviation in the mode of investment would tantamount to modification of the judgement – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot modify the judgement and that too in proceedings arising out of execution of that very judgement.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment in plaint – Application dismissed – Observations of – Effect of -- It is well settled that observations made while deciding applications are never binding while finally deciding the suit.

(Para 6)

Code of civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13, Section 151  -- Ex-parte judgment – Setting aside of -- Summon under NI Act was issued for 01.10.2016 and in the civil suit for appearance of respondent on 19.10.2016 -- Compromise between the daughter of Plaintiff/ petitioner and the respondent/defendant and after receiving the final installment, daughter of petitioner withdrew the complaint on 21.01.2017 --  Whether or not the present transaction was a part of compromise is clearly the subject matter of trial and shall be decided accordingly by the ld. trial Court on the basis of evidence -- Respondent successfully proved that he had sufficient reason for not appearing before the trial Court -- Trail Court has correctly allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and set aside the ex-parte judgment.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Suit for permanent injunction -- Death of sole defendant -- Rejection of plaint -- Suit seeking permanent injunction against sole defendant for restraining him from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff or creating any hindrance or obstruction in the peaceful use and enjoyment for irrigation of the fields of the plaintiff from the tubewell/electric motor connection -- After the death of the sole defendant and the nature of the suit, the same cannot continue -- Application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed -- Plaintiff will be within his jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings against legal representatives of sole defendant in a case aggrieved in any manner.

(Para 2, 11, 12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Adjourning of ad-interim prayer awaiting written statement – Defendants carrying out construction in full swing -- Challenge in revision -- Petition seems to have been filed prematurely and same is disposed of with an observation that any construction as alleged shall be at their sole risk and responsibility -- In case the pending application is decided against them, they shall be equally responsible to remove the construction, at their own cost and risk, subject of course to the final outcome of the civil suit.

(Para 1-3)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Execution petition pending since 2016 – Revision against -- Warrants of possession have been issued on numerous dates but either the same have not been received back or have been returned back unexecuted – Direction given to Executing Court to finally decide the execution petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months.

(Para 3, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Application for amendment of written statement – Dismissal by Trial Court – Revision petition -- It is trite that the Courts are more liberal while allowing the amendment of a written statement viz-a-viz that of a plaint -- However, in the case not only the trial has commenced but the amendment sought by the defendant-petitioner would change the entire defence as raised by the him in his written statement -- Not only is the date of payment, but also the name of the person to whom the payment is stated to have been paid, is sought to be changed -- Amendment sought would not only cause prejudice to the plaintiff-respondent but would also necessarily entail a de novo trial, which is at the fag end -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 2, 9)