Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Suit property – Stay on alienation – Requirement of – Principle of lis pendence – Parties to the suit are brothers having 1/3^rd share in the suit land – Suit property was orally partitioned, though not been incorporated in the revenue records – Respondents-defendants and/ or their agents were initially restrained by the trial Court from alienating, transferring and changing the nature of the suit property, however, they have been permitted to do so by the appellate Court with a rider to not change the nature and character thereof – Ld. Appellate Court has rightly observed that, in case of any alienation, proposed vendee would step into the shoes of defendants being co-sharers in the joint possession – Any alienation made during pendency of suit would, in any case, be subject to rule of lis pendence – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1-6)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100, 103 -- Second appeal – Substantial question of law – Question of fact – Power of High Court – Suit dismissed -- First Appellate Court reversed the finding and decreed the suit -- High Court allowed the second appeal dismissing the suit -- High Court, vide the impugned judgment, noted that the First Appellate Court had considered irrelevant material and had erred in appreciating the legal issue involved -- High Court did not note that the First Appellate Court, due to its erroneous approach, had failed to consider the evidence in the correct light – Held, in such a circumstance, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court to determine the factual issues in light of the legal point as decided by it, or should have itself taken a decision on the facts u/s 103 of the Civil Procedure Code - -Judgment of the High Court set aside, matter remanded back to High Court.

(Par 6-9, 12-15)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100, 103 -- Second appeal – Substantial question of law – Question of fact – Power of High Court -- Settled position of law that a second appeal, u/s 100 of the CPC, lies only on a substantial question of law -- However, this does not mean that the High Court cannot, in any circumstance, decide findings of fact or interfere with those arrived at by the Courts below in a second appeal -- In fact, Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly provides for circumstances under which the High Court may do so -- High Court to decide an issue of fact, provided there is sufficient evidence on record before it, in two circumstances.

-- First, when an issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal has not been determined by the lower Appellate Court or by both the Courts below.

-- And second, when an issue of fact has been wrongly determined by the Court(s) below by virtue of the decision on the question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(Para 10, 11)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 11, 16(1)(c) -- Suit for specific performance – Readiness and willingness – Subsequent purchaser – Right of -- High Court went on the footing that it was not open to the appellant i.e. subsequent purchaser to raise any submissions on the issue of readiness and willingness on behalf of plaintiff -- Judgment clearly fell in serious error – Decision of the High Court set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration on merits.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96(3), Order 43 Rule 1A – Consent decree – Appeal against – Maintainability of -- As per Section 96(3), the appeal against the decree passed with the consent of the parties shall be barred -- Order XLIII Rule 1A provides that in an appeal against the decree passed in a suit for recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should or should not have been recorded -- High Court rightly come to the conclusion that the appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree was maintainable -- No error has been committed by the High Court in holding so.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 90 – Auction sale in execution of consent decree – Setting aside of -- JD did not deposit the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- i.e. sale consideration together with interest in terms of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC -- Not the case of the JD that there was any material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale -- Objection is that the decree was obtained by fraud -- Application submitted by the original judgment debtors under Order XXI Rule 90 was required to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed by the learned Executing Court.

(Para 13)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 89, 90, 91, 92 -- Auction sale in execution of consent decree – Overruling of objection – Non-availing of remedy in time – Effect of -- As per Order XXI Rule 92, where an application is made under Order XXI Rule 89, Order XXI Rule 90 and Order XXI Rule 91 and the same is disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale and thereafter the sale shall become absolute -- As per Order XXI Rule 94, where a sale of immovable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser -- Such certificate shall bear the date on which the sale became absolute -- High Court ought not to have thereafter set aside the order dated 03.03.1998 overruling the objections raised by the judgment debtors, which order was not challenged by the judgment debtors before the High Court till the year 2000 – Impugned judgment cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(Para 14)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 90 – Auction sale in execution of consent decree – Setting aside of -- High Court hold auction purchaser cannot be said to be the bona fide purchaser as he was related to the judgment creditor and that he was a partner of the firm in whose favour the mortgage was executed – However, application for setting aside was not filed on above ground it was submitted on the ground that no proper publication was made to get the adequate market value -- Therefore, the High Court has gone beyond the case of the judgment debtors – Even on merit High Court is not correct in observing that the auction purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser -- Partnership firm was already dissolved much before and thereafter the plaintiff inherited the assets, claims and liabilities of the firm.

(Para 15)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Additional evidence – Delay tactics -- Revisional powers – In case, the affidavit was ready on 7.1.2020, there was no logical reason for the same not to be filed in the Court, although, the matter was listed on four different dates till 7.2.2020 -- Trial Court has noted that despite 17 opportunities having been granted, the defendant-petitioner has not examined himself as his own witness -- Tendency amongst litigants to delay the trials is on the rise and this tendency adds to the arrears of the Courts of law -- Time is now right to curtail such tendencies with a heavy hand unless the facts of the case disclose that either of the parties to the suit would be grossly prejudiced – Revision dismissed.

(Para 4-6)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36, 37, 38 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Suit for permanent injunction by trespasser -- Maintainability of -- It is a common principle of law that even trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction -- However, the matter would be different, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in the plaint about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declaration of title along with injunction relief.

(Para 21)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36, 37, 38 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Suit for permanent injunction without declaration of title – Maintainability of -- Suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction was maintainable in view of the previous litigation which was initiated at the instance of defendant No.1 where he lost the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the same property -- Suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff deserved to be decreed on the basis of admitted and established possession of the plaintiff.

(Para 25, 26)

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), Section 11(2) -- Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, Rule 6(2) – Migration of student -- Term ‘Migration’ cannot be read out of context without reference to the Regulation which clearly provides that both colleges should be recognised u/s 11(2) of the Act – College in which the first respondent is studying is yet to be recognised u/s 11(2) of the Act – Held, migration cannot be permitted contrary to the Regulations.

(Para 9)

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 127, 135 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Electricity dues – Pilferage/ Theft of Electricity --  Dispute of – Writ jurisdiction --  Civil suit – Remedy of – Petitioner calls in question the calculation of electricity dues, for a period of one year, prepared by the respondent-power supply company -- Petitioner has already availed the remedy of civil suit, but the same was later on withdrawn as the interim order granted was subject to certain conditions, which apparently were not found convenient -- In other words, the petitioner is indulging in forum shopping – Writ petition involves disputed questions of fact, which can appropriately be adjudicated after permitting the parties to lead the evidence – Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for revival of the civil suit, if so advised -- If such an application is filed, the trial Court will consider the same sympathetically.

(Para 10, 11)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Revisional Jurisdiction – Mentioning of brief facts in judgment – Requirement of -- High Court records that the parties advanced contentions at length, there is no reflection of these so called submissions which are stated to have been advanced at length -- It is not necessary, in the matter like this to record elaborate reasons but since these matters are carried forward to this Court, the reasons, albeit brief, have to be recorded to facilitate Supreme Court to understand what weighed with the learned Judge while dismissing the petition -- Impugned order set aside and matter remitted back for reconsideration so that the order to be passed one way or the other records reasons for the same, albeit even if they are brief -- It would be in the fitness of things that the matter is placed before another learned Judge.

(Para 4)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Restitution of conjugal rights petition -- Second transfer application – Res-judicata -- Dismissal of a petition for transfer, may not operate as res judicata, when a fresh petition is filed on change of circumstances.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Restitution of conjugal rights petition -- Transfer application – Interest of justice – Power of -- When a case is at its final stage, Court will be extremely reluctant to order the transfer, as it may derail the entire process -- Prayer for transfer rejected -- Petitioner permitted to move an application for reopening of her evidence before the family Court – Family Court may take a lenient view on the said application and have the evidence on the side of the petitioner restored -- On all occasions except the date on which the petitioner is to be cross examined, the petitioner may be permitted by the Family Court to be represented by a counsel without being present -- If Video Conferencing facility is available, the petitioner may be granted the said facility -- On every occasion when the family Court wants the physical presence of the petitioner, the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner, towards expenses for travel and stay.

(Para 13-16)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 --  Written statement – Non-filing within 90 days -- Defence struck off -- 90 days have elapsed but no written statement or reply to the stay application filed – Submission that due to COVID-19 pandemic and restricted functioning of the courts, the defendants could not file the written statement and stated that it would be filed within 15 days – Order set aside -- It is well settled that the defence of a party is required to be struck off only as a matter of last resort.

(Para 1-3)

A. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Question of title – Jurisdiction of Revenue authorities -- Neither the authorities, constituted under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, nor the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act (while deciding the mutations), have the jurisdiction to decide on the question of title.

(Para 6)

B. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 18, 25 – Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3) -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34 – Surplus land – Suit for declaration – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Cancellation of instrument can be obtained by a person against whom such a written instrument is void or voidable -- Whereas Section 34 provides for declaration of status or right -- It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs were not the parties to the litigation when the orders u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 were passed or when the land was declared surplus -- When the proceedings or orders of the quasi-judicial Tribunal are challenged before the Civil Court, one is not required to challenge the order in the strict sense as he is not bound by the same -- Hence, such person is entitled to file a suit for declaration that such orders do not affect his rights.

(Para 8)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Question of title -- Mutation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities -- Finding of civil court – Effect of -- Revenue authorities, while deciding mutations, do not have jurisdiction to decide the question of right, title or interest of the parties -- Revenue authorities are bound to implement the order finally passed by the Civil Court -- Writ petition disposed of with the observations that whenever the Civil Court finally decides the suit, the revenue authorities would be bound to give effect thereto in the revenue record.

(Para 12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 41 Rule 31 – First Appeal – Duty of Appellate Court – It mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state (a) points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled -- Appellate court has the jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court -- Appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings -- Appellate court’s jurisdiction involves a rehearing of appeal on questions of law as well as fact -- First appeal is a valuable right, and, at that stage, all questions of fact and law decided by the trial court are open for re-consideration -- Judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect conscious application of mind and must record the court’s findings, supported by reasons for its decision in respect of all the issues, along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties -- Needless to say, the first appellate court is required to comply with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and non-observance of these requirements lead to infirmity in the judgment.

(Para 8)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Matrimonial proceedings in Family Court – Trial through video conference -- Review petition – Earlier transfer petition was dismissed and direction was given for trial through video conferencing – Review petition on the ground that no video conferencing facility at Gautambudh Nagar, District Courts and also that video conferencing is not permissible in matrimonial matters – Held, due to ongoing pandemic, proceedings in all Courts are being conducted only through video conferencing -- Review petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 -- Possession of property -- Application for appointment of Local Commissioner – Rejected on the ground that factum of possession is a matter of evidence and parties have to prove the same -- Held, Trial Court was justified in holding that the Court cannot be asked to collect evidence for the parties.

(Para 2-4)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 – Shamilat deh – Res-judicata – Earlier plaintiff’s father petition was dismissed by Collector, affirmed by Division Bench of High Court -- Land in dispute is the same in the previous and subsequent litigation which came to be decided by the Division Bench -- Plaintiff as well as his witness admitted that the plaintiff's father also filed a similar suit in which he remained unsuccessful -- Keeping in view the principle of res judicata, the suit is a clear abuse of the process of the Court – Appeal dismissed in limini, with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement – Non-filing of -- Defence struck off -- Non-framing of issues – Effect of -- Since the issues have not been framed till date, this revision allowed and order set aside with direction to the trial Court to allow the petitioner to file his written statement after giving one more opportunity subject to deposit of Rs.15,000/- as costs.

(Para 1-3)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B -- Divorce with mutual consent -- Denial of waiver of six months period -- Re-marriage of petitioner No.2 was on the cards, but the same could not be finalized due to pendency of petition -- Approach adopted by the Court to insist waiting period of six months for second motion, was uncalled for -- Marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken -- Opportunity to live their lives in the manner they like, including remarriage, cannot be denied -- Insisting to wait to another six months would result in adding to their woes -- Revision petition allowed.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of Divorce petition – Transfer sought from Faridkot to Bathinda – Petitioner is currently a resident of the Village in District Bathinda and distance between village and Bathinda is in excess of 30 kms -- Distance between Bathinda and Faridkot is 69 kms. approximately – Held, undoubtedly, the convenience of the wife/lady under normal circumstances should prevail, however, such rule of convenience is not to be applied blindly -- Petitioner in any event has to travel more than 30 kms. -- Application under the provisions of the DV Act was filed only after filing of the divorce petition -- Applications seeking transfer are not to be entertained in a routine and casual manner -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 6-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 19-A – Order 9 Rule 6 -- Return of plaint – Suit for recovery dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction -- Held, plaint ought to have been returned to the plaintiff instead of dismissal of the entire suit -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside -- Respondents-defendants did not opt to contest the suit and were proceeded ex-parte, there is no necessity to issue notice of the present petition to them.

(Para 2-6)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13, 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- SARFAAESI proceedings – Suit for permanent injunction dismissed – Temporary injunction declined in First Appeal – Challenge to -- District Magistrate passed order u/s 14 of the Act of 2002 to enable taking over of the physical possession of the secured assets -- Issue of the maintainability of the suit instituted by the petitioner weighs heavily against him – No ground to interfere with the order of appellate Court -- Revision dismissed.

(Para 1, 5-8)

Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 7 – Absolute Acceptance -- Whether the acceptance of a conditional offer with a further condition results in a concluded contract, irrespective of whether the offerer accepts the further condition proposed by the acceptor -- Respondent-Port Trust agreed to inspection at the Depot of the Appellant, but imposed a further condition that the goods would be finally inspected at the showroom of the Respondent-Port Trust -- This Condition was not accepted by the Appellant -- It could not, therefore, be said that there was a concluded contract -- There being no concluded contract, there could be no question of any breach on the part of the Appellant or of damages or any risk purchase at the cost of the Appellant -- Earnest deposit of the Appellant is liable to be refunded -- Interest @ 6% per annum awarded on earnest money from the date of institution of suit.

(Para 1, 59-62)

A. Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), Section 3, 19(1), 35, 45, 53B, 53T -- Aggrieved person -- Act vests powers in the CCI and enables it to act in rem, in public interest -- This would make it clear that a “person aggrieved” must, in the context of the Act, be understood widely and not be constructed narrowly -- Further, it is not without significance that the expressions used in sections 53B and 53T of the Act are “any person”, thereby signifying that all persons who bring to the CCI information of practices that are contrary to the provisions of the Act, could be said to be aggrieved by an adverse order of the CCI in case it refuses to act upon the information supplied.

(Para 20)

B. Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), Section 3 -- Price-fixing Agreement by Ola and Uber – Allegation of cartelization and anti-competitive practices – Held, Ola and Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, who are independent individuals, who act independently of each other, so as to attract the application of section 3 of the Act.

(Para 23)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Suit for permanent injunction – Decision on title – Sustainability of -- Appellants were seeking the relief of permanent injunction only -- Two reports of the Pleader Commissioner also confirmed the possessory title of the appellants along with property tax registers and municipal tax receipts -- Appellants had more than sufficiently established their lawful possession of the suit property -- Conclusion by the courts below that the appellants had failed to establish title and therefore could not be said to be in lawful possession is therefore held to be perverse and unsustainable – Similarly, the conclusion that the identity of the suit property was not established is also held to be perverse – Held, Trial Court and the High Court both posed unto themselves the wrong question venturing to decide the title of the appellants, and arrived at an erroneous conclusion -- Impugned orders dismissing the suit and the appeal are therefore not sustainable – Appeal allowed.

(Para 14-16)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 -- Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 53 – Embezzlement by Sarpanch – Recovery from Sarpanch -- It would be a matter of evidence whether the construction was done or not though payments had been withdrawn -- Interest of the petitioner can be protected to the extent that if the amount is deposited by him before the Trial Court, the said amount can be put in a fixed deposit receipt – Direction given that on deposit of said amount of Rs.6,61,370/- with the Trial Court, the same shall be kept in a fixed deposit receipt to earn the highest rate of interest during the pendency of the suit – Amount should be disbursed to the successful party at the end of the trial.

(Para 7-11)

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 6, 9 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8, 12, 25 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Custody petition by mother at Chandigarh -- Territorial jurisdiction – Expression ‘minor ordinarily resides’ – Interpretation of -- Daughters aged about 4 and 3 years residing at Noida with father – Application for rejection of plaint moved by father dismissed by Guardian Judge, Chandigarh – Expression ‘minor ordinarily resides’ used in Section 9 has to be interpreted to mean residence of the mother – Custody of minors under five years of age would naturally lie with the mother – Thus, custody of the minor is deemed to be with the mother irrespective of the actual custody being with the father – Held, no illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Guardian Judge, Chandigarh, which calls for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

(Para 3, 5-8)

Constitution of India, Article 19(g), 139-A(1) -- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XL Rule 1 – Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (XXXVIII of 1949), Section 22 -- Guidelines No.1-CA(7)/02/2008 dated 08.08.2008, Chapter VI – Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 44AB – Limit for specified number of tax audit assignments -- Professional or other misconduct by Chartered Accountants -- Transfer of petitions to Supreme court of India – Guidelines which are impugned in the High Court and consequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against various chartered accountants throughout the country is an issue of public importance affecting Chartered Accountants as well as the citizens who have to obtain compulsory tax audits – Transfer Petitions allowed -- Writ petitions are withdrawn to Supreme Court -- Interim orders passed in the writ petitions which are being transferred to Supreme Court shall continue till any other order is passed by this Court.

(Para 4, 16)

A. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), 81, 82, 83 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 15 -- A defective verification is a curable defect -- An election petition cannot be thrown out in limine, on the ground that the verification is defective -- Defects in the verification and prayer made by the petitioner were curable and an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to cure the defects.

(Para 43-48)

B. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 8(3), 81(1) – Disqualification for contesting election -- Effect of punishment by criminal court -- Punishments imposed upon the petitioner for a period not less than two years in two independent criminal cases and the suspension of execution of sentence alone granted by the appellate/revisional Courts – Therefore, case is covered by Section 8(3) of the Act -- Disqualification which commences from the date of conviction, continues till the expiry of a period of six years from the date of his release – Held, mere suspension of the execution of the sentence is not sufficient to take the rigour out of Section 8(3) -- Disqualification u/s 8(3) will continue so long as there is no stay of conviction.

(Para 49-61)

C. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 8(3), 81(1) -- Election to Lok Sabha -- Election petition by disqualified candidate – Maintainability of -- Petitioner was disqualified from contesting the elections in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act -- In such circumstances, she could not have maintained an election petition as “a candidate at such election” in terms of Section 81(1).

(Para 62)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 9 -- Shifting of Tribunal – Non-appearance of respondent – Ex-parte proceedings -- Petitioner had appeared before Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambala Cantt. and, thereafter had not bothered to put in appearance when the proceedings were transferred to the Tribunal at Ambala City -- Neither it has been mentioned as to how he was not aware of the matter being transferred to the Tribunal at Ambala City or there was any hitch or disability the petitioner suffered and that he was not aware of the proceedings pending at Ambala Cantt – No sufficient case made out for not appearing before the Tribunal to defend the proceedings – Order affirmed.

(Para 8-10, 14)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 2(g), 9 – Maintenance against nephew – Maintainability of -- Once the petitioner is in possession of the property and liable to inherit the property after the death of the senior citizen, the section provides that maintenance can be claimed by a childless senior citizen as per Clause (g) of Section 2 -- Argument that the application was not maintainable in the absence of any relationship, is not made out.

(Para 3, 11, 12)

C. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), section 2(g), 9 -- Maintenance against nephew – Petitioner/Nephew  is earning from the business of the shop in which the father of the respondent No.3/Senior citizen was working -- By keeping the Senior citizen out of the said shop, he is also debarring the said respondent from earning and getting the fruits from the said shop, wherein his father was a tenant – Petitioner would come under the purview of Section 2 (g) of the 2007 Act and liability to maintain the Senior citizen would fall upon him.

(Para 13)

Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 33, 79(b) 4, 81, 83, 86(1) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6, Rule 16, Order 7 Rule 11 – Election petition – Cause of action – Locus Standi -- Rejection of plaint -- Election petition for declaring the election of the respondent to be void on the ground that the appellant’s nomination was improperly rejected and further that the nomination of the respondent was wrongly accepted for want of disclosure of certain facts -- High Court dismissed the Election Petition on the ground that the appellant had no locus to challenge the election of the respondent since the appellant was neither an elector for such constituency nor was he a candidate.

-- Averments in the petition do not disclose that the appellant has a cause of action which invest him with right to sue. It is settled that where a person has no interest at all, or no sufficient interest to support a legal claim or action he will have no locus standi to sue. Entitlement to sue or locus standi is an integral part of cause of action.

-- Section 83 of the Act allows only an elector or candidate to maintain an Election Petition.

-- Impliedly, it bars any other person from filing an Election Petition -- In this sense the Election Petition can also be set to be barred by Section 81 read with Section 86(1) of the Act.

Election Petition has been rightly nipped in the bud -- Civil Appeal dismissed.

(Para 1-4, 25-27)

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 226 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Sections 64, 65 -- Refund of contract consideration – Duty of Board -- Writ jurisdiction -- Similarly situated contractors refunded by Court order -- Respondent approached the civil court, later resort to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- When writ petition was considered, the suit was permitted to be withdrawn; the High Court directed the Board to deposit the entire principal amount, with interest @ 10% per annum -- By the final impugned judgment, that order was confirmed – Held, deliberate inaction to force a citizen or a commercial concern to approach the court, rather than take a decision, justified on the anvil of reason means that the Board acted in a discriminatory manner -- Conduct of the Board betrays a callous and indifferent attitude – Despite knowledge that at least three other identically placed entities had asked for return of money and, upon approaching the court, were refunded the amounts given by them promptly -- Nothing prevented the Board from deciding to refund the amount, without forcing appellant to approach the court – Order of High Court upheld with modification in interest part.

(Para 32, 37-40)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Suit for correction of mother’s name in matriculation certificate -- Birth certificate as well as aadhar card and ration card of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 bears the name of his mother as 'Laxmi' – It is only in the examination form, forwarded by the school authorities to the appellant-Board, the name of mother has been mentioned as 'Raj' -- Not a case of fraud or ulterior purposes, it is an inadvertent mistake, which needs to be corrected so that the child does not suffer for life – Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, for the correction of name of his mother allowed and appeal of the appellant-Board was rejected – Held, concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below, needs no intervention.

(Para 4, 12-16)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – One of the prayer is beyond jurisdiction – Once, the Competent Court of Law is within the jurisdiction to grant the prayers of declaring the enquiry illegal and also declaring the appointment of a Nodal Enquiry Officer illegal or the enquiry report not binding upon the plaintiff, the suit is maintainable and cannot be rejected merely on the ground that one of the prayer of the plaintiff/respondent in the suit for withdrawing the FIR is beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal – Framing of substantial question of law – Requirement of -- High Court did not commit any illegality in not framing any substantial question of law while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants -- Formulation of substantial question of law or reformulation of the same in terms of the proviso arises only if there are some questions of law and not in the absence of any substantial question of law -- High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court.

(Para 21-23)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3 – Evidence in Civil dispute – Standard of proof -- It is settled that the standard of proof required in a civil dispute is preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.

(Para 80)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 17 – Fraud – Limitation -- Though the discrepancies in the GPA are bound to create some doubt, however, in absence of any tangible evidence produced by the plaintiff to support the plea of fraud, it does not take the matter further -- Testimony of the attesting witness, scribe and other independent witnesses plainly support the case of the defendants -- That evidence dispels the doubt if any; and tilt the balance in favour of the defendants – Since the plaintiff could not establish the existence of fraud, it must follow that the suits are ex-facie barred by limitation.

(Para 80, 81)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal – Power of -- Trial Court and the first appellate Court appreciated the evidence properly – The view was possible view – High Court ought not to have disturbed the same in the second appeal and that too on surmises and conjectures – Appeals allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court set aside – Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is hereby restored.

(Para 83)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Temporary injunction against co-sharer -- Co-sharer has no right to change the nature of the property till its partition takes place -- However, there cannot be any bar either in law or in equity, vide which a party can be restrained from raising construction over a portion of land, which is in his exclusive possession -- Petitioners/defendants would be entitled to reconstruct the house only to the extent of their share in the suit property, which would, of course, be subject to the final outcome of the partition proceedings.

(Para 10, 11)

Adoption deed – Challenge to -- Evidence without pleadings -- It is fairly well settled that in absence of pleading, any amount of evidence will not help the party -- When the adoption ceremony, which had taken place on 14.11.2001, is mentioned in the registered adoption deed, which was questioned in the suit, there is absolutely no reason for not raising specific plea in the suit and to file application at belated stage to summon the record to prove that the second respondent was on duty as on 14.11.2001 -- There was an order from the High Court for expeditious disposal of the suit and the application which was filed belatedly is rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Revisional Court and High Court.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, 151, Order 47 Rule 1 – Review – Scope of -- An order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself -- Powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, 151, Order 47 Rule 1 – Review – Scope of -- Observations in para 20 of judgment with respect to possession of the plaintiffs on appreciation of evidence on record -- It cannot be said that there was an error apparent on the face of proceedings which were required to be reviewed in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC -- High Court has clearly erred in deleting para 20 in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC -- At the most, observations made in para 20 can be said to be erroneous decision cannot be a ground to exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC -- Impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(Para 10, 11, 15)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, 151, Order 47 Rule 1 – Review – Scope of -- Non-framing of the issue with respect to possession – There were necessary pleadings with respect to possession in the plaint as well as in the written statement -- Even the parties also led the evidence on the possession -- Original plaintiff/appellant led the evidence with supporting documents to show his possession and to that, there was no cross-examination by the defendants/respondents – Defendants/respondents did not lead any evidence to show their possession -- If the parties are aware of the rival cases, the failure to formally formulate the issue fades into insignificance when an extensive evidence has been recorded without any demur – High Court deleted the observations made in para 20 with respect to possession in review -- impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(Para 11.1-15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Status Quo – Restoration of possession through police – Permissibility of -- No specific finding or opinion has been expressed as regards the factum of possession of either of the parties -- Trial Court, however, directed both the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession -- In case of violation of any ad-interim injunction, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to have recourse to provisions of Order 39 Rule 2 CPC, if so advised -- In the absence of any specific and unambiguous finding regarding possession, the police cannot be directed to restore possession of the plaintiff.

(Para 8)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Agreement to sell with possession -- Specific recital with regard to delivery of possession in the agreement to sell signed by the parties proved -- Mere failure of plaintiff to depose about the delivery of possession in the examination-in-chief would not be sufficient for the Court to record a finding that the stand of the plaintiffs with respect to delivery of actual possession is erroneous.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Agreement to sell with actual physical possession of specific portion out of joint land – Permissibility of -- A co-sharer in actual physical possession of a specific portion out of the big parcel of joint land is entitled to deliver possession thereof to anyone -- No doubt, sale of a specific portion or parcel of land out of joint property by a co-sharer shall be deemed to be sale of undivided share out of joint land -- However, there is no bar either in the delivery of possession of specific portion or sale thereof out of the joint land -- First Appellate Court committed material irregularity while observing that a co-sharer cannot deliver the possession of the specific portion in its possession to someone out of joint property.

(Para 10)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 -- Delay and laches – Appellate Court finds that suit filed by the plaintiffs suffers from laches -- Defendant while filing the written statement did not allege that the suit suffered from laches -- Consequently no issue on this aspect was framed -- In the evidence no stand that the suit filed by the plaintiffs suffers from unexplained laches -- Thus, the observations made by the learned first Appellate Court are not only beyond pleadings but also beyond evidence.

(Para 11, 12)

D. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 -- Suit for specific performance – Limitation -- Delay and laches -- Period of limitation in a suit for specific performance do not begin to run from the date on which agreement to sell has been executed – Period of limitation would either begin to run from the date fixed for its performance or if no date or period is stipulated, then from the date the plaintiff has notice that the performance has been refused by the opposite side.

(Para 11, 13, 21)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- First Appeal – Setting aside of trial court judgment -- It is not appropriate for the learned first Appellate Court to set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court without recording definite finding or the reasons for reversing thereof after critical analysis of the reasons with reference to error in the application of law or misreading or non-reading or misconstruction of the evidence available on record.

(Para 21)

F. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 -- Agreement to sell – Entire sale consideration paid – Delay and laches – Ground of -- It is not appropriate for the Court to decline the relief of specific performance on the ground of laches particularly when the entire sale consideration has been paid and the suit was filed within limitation.

(Para 21)

A. Appointment / Refusal to appoint Local Commissioner – Maintainability of revision petition -- Order of appointing or refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Pritam Singh’s case 1990(2) PLR 191 relied.

(Para 3)

B. Dismissal of application for appointment of the Local Commissioner – Revision petition against – Maintainability of -- Present petition challenging the order refusing to appoint the Local Commissioner, is not maintainable, as such order does not decide any issue, nor adjudicates upon the rights of the parties.

(Para 3, 4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9, Rule 13 -- Petitioner served through her husband – Not appeared -- Ex-parte decree – Application for setting aside ex-parte decree dismissed – Challenge in revision -- Petitioner was residing with her husband on the said address at the given time -- It could not been shown that the husband of the petitioner did not receive the summons -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 2,5-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 4 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 138 -- Suit for recission of agreement to sell – Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 -- Cross-examination was being deferred on request of counsel for defendant – Cross-examination ordered to be treated as 'Nil' by impugned order -- Held, courts should be liberal in granting the prayer sought unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side or that the prayer sought is not a bona fide one -- A party cannot be refused the just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure -- Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for not cross-examining PW 1 because the same is necessary for the just decision of the suit -- Impugned order set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine PW 1 subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 2-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 1 -- Pleading that property was purchased in 2001 – Maintainability of suit – Rejection of plaint -- For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be taken into account -- There is no averment in the plaint, which shows that the construction was more than 10 years old with regard to the suit property so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court -- Application on presumption that as the suit property has been purchased in the year 2001, the construction must be 10 years old -- Court has to arrive at a definite conclusion that on the basis of the pleadings in the suit, the suit is not maintainable -- Interpretation of the averment in a particular manner is not permissible – High Court found no ground to interfere in dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 7 -- Suit for permanent injunction against Municipal Committee – Impleadment application by petitioner/ local resident declined – Held, plaintiff is the master of the suit -- Nobody can be imposed upon the plaintiff to contest the suit especially in case when no relief is being sought against a particular person/authority by the plaintiff -- No ground to interfere in the impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Rule 4 -- Temporary injunction – Causing appearance -- Remedy against – Power of -- When a temporary injunction has been granted without giving notice, the opposite side always has the remedy to move the same Court by filing an appropriate application seeking its recalling/ modification -- Rule 4 gives them ample window to approach the trial Court for modification/ recalling of temporary injunction order, on causing appearance -- Revision petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial Court seeking modification/ recalling of the impugned ad interim injunction order by filing an appropriate application.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 39 -- Suit for mandatory injunction -- Interim injunction to remove construction – Scope of -- Relief of mandatory injunction to direct defendant to remove the construction, cannot be granted by way of interim injunction, as it will amount to passing of decree at this stage.

(Para 13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 3, 4, Order 7 Rule 10, 11, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Section 24 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Dismiss in default – Restoration of -- Maintainability of suit – Continuation of stay -- Non-application of judicial mind – Explanation called form District Judge – Detailed reasons:

-- Application for withdrawal of the Civil suit allowed by the trial Court on 30.09.2019 as well as before the Appellate Court, which was allowed on 07.12.2019, therefore, on face of record, no cause of action survives in favour of plaintiff No.1 in the suit – By showing total non-application of judicial mind, the Appellate Court is continuing with the appeal as well as the interim injunction.

-- A perusal of the first order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the District Judge also reflect non-application of judicial mind as the operation of the order dated 06.08.2019 dismissing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs, was stayed and simultaneously, further injunction was granted against the Bank from proceeding against the plaintiffs, in accordance with law -- It is well settled principle of law that if an injunction application filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed by the Civil Court, the Appellate Court unless by recording detailed reason of urgency may grant interim injunction for a short period or in ordinary course, after giving a short notice to the contesting defendants may pass an interim order. Both these principles of law have been ignored by the District Judge.

-- The Civil Court has passed the order dated 06.08.2019 in the presence of the contesting party i.e. the plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1 – Bank and the counsel representing interim resolution professional of plaintiff No.2, therefore, the Appellate Court who is adjourning the appeal to serve the remaining unserved defendants, who are not contesting before the Civil Court is nothing but a futile exercise, just to extend the stay in favour of the plaintiffs whereas the service of the remaining defendants could be dispensed with in terms of provisions of Order 41 Rule 3 Proviso added by amendment as applicable to Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.

-- The another reason which show the slackness and disrespect on the part of the Appellate Court is that defendant No.1 – Bank has brought all the previous orders passed by the Writ Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the NCLT and the NCALT and on 07.12.2019, it was also brought to the notice of the Appellate Court that the Civil Court stands dismissed for non-prosecution, however, still the interim stay was extended and no effort was made to dispose of the main appeal.

-- Even surprisingly, despite the instructions passed by the High Court that the photocopy of the Lower Appellate Court should be summoned so that the proceedings before the Lower Court is not automatically stayed, the Appellate Court summoned the record of the trial Court vide order dated 07.12.2019 and despite the fact that the seat of the District Judge and of the trial Court is at the same place, till 01.02.2020, the record was not received and in the intervening period, the interim order was ordered to be extended by the Appellate Court.

-- Even further on 29.02.2020, after noticing that the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution and the petitioner – Bank is stressing that the appeal is not maintainable, the Appellate Court, while returning the record of the trial Court, directed that the application for restoration be decided in a time bound manner i.e. 1½ months, therefore, the intention of the plaintiffs is apparent on record to delay the proceedings either before the District Judge or before the trial Court by not arguing the application for restoration of civil suit.

-- Thus the District Judge has failed to perform even the administrative duty by not keeping a check on trial Court which has not decided the application for restoration of suit till date i.e. even after lapse of 08 months, in violation of his own order dated 29.02.2020.

-- The District Judge being the administrative head of the District, is required to keep a check on the subordinate judiciary and the manner in which the order in the civil suit are passed, show that an effort is made to delay the proceedings to enable the plaintiffs to gain time.

-- Even the trial Court is adjourning the case for effecting the service on non-contesting respondents and is not deciding the application for restoration of civil suit despite the fact that when suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, the presence of the counsel for defendants was marked and service on defendants can be effected through counsel, to avoid the delay.

-- The basic principles of law as set down in various judgments to decide the application for restoration of a suit/appeal or likewise setting-aside ex parte order are that if the application is filed within a reasonable time as in the instant case, it was filed within a period of 06 days; a bona fide ground is given, as in this case, the counsel representing the plaintiffs has filed his own affidavit; the general principle that no one should be condemn unheard is not violated and if required, the other party can be compensated by way of costs, thus, majority of such applications are allowed, however, this is not followed by the trial Court.

-- Based upon such principle, the trial Court could have decided the application immediately without wasting the time to serve the non-contesting respondents. Needless to say that 03 months time was taken by the Appellate Court, in summoning the record of the trial Court, which further delayed the disposal of the application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC.

-- It is not understandable as to why the District Judge/Appellate Court is adjourning the appeal despite the fact that the suit stands dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.11.2019 and the plaintiffs on both counts are seeking adjournments and both the Courts, on face of record are showing undue favour to the plaintiffs.

-- Once the petitioner – Bank on 07.12.2019 has brought to the notice of the Appellate Court, about all the orders passed by High Court & the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the dismissal of the suit in default, there was no justification for the Appellate Court to continue with the stay order, which was obtained by concealing the aforesaid litigation and orders and therefore, continuing with the stay order by ignoring the orders of the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter se parties, the District Judge has shown disrespect to orders and, on face of record has shown favour to the plaintiffs to delay the proceedings.

-- Even otherwise, the grant of ex parte stay and thereafter, continuation of the interim stay for a period of 01 year despite all odds is in violation of the well settled principle of law held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that injunctions against financial institutions should not be granted casually. The default in payment of public money involved in the case is more than 1100 crores of rupees and therefore, the continuation of the interim order by the Appellate Court is not at all in public interest.

30 days’ time given to District Judge to submit explanation -- Civil Appeal ordered to be transferred from the Court of District Judge to the Court of Additional District Judge -- Transferee Court will decide the appeal within a period of 03 weeks, from the date of receipt of the case file -- Application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC be decided within a period of 03 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order – In case, the suit is restored, the trial Court will further pass an order within a period of 03 weeks thereafter, regarding maintainability of suit by assessing the averments “only in the plaint” (in terms of Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC), if any cause of action survive in favour of plaintiff No.1, after the suit stands dismissed as withdrawn qua plaintiff No.2 -- In view of the settled principle of law, the trial Court will only look into the contents of the plaint and no other documents will be considered for the same.

(Para 31-39)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Application for amendment of plaint -- Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ought to have been decided prior to the decision in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 4)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 41(j) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 8, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Section 151 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Suit for mandatory injunction – Temporary injunction – Maintainability of -- Construction of Community Hall on the instructions of State Government, which has accorded permission on the basis of resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and the amount is being spent by the State Government – Challenge to stay declined by Courts below – Held,

-- It is well settled principle of law that in a suit for mandatory injunction, no relief of temporary injunction can be granted, which will amount to passing a decree of mandatory injunction itself.

-- A careful perusal of the plaint would show that nothing is stated that any personal right of any of the petitioners is infringed, therefore, in view of Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable.

-- The suit has not been filed in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and no application has been moved seeking permission from the Court that the suit is being filed on behalf of the entire village community, therefore, it is a suit which has been filed only by nine inhabitants of the village, whereas the Community Hall is being constructed for the entire village.

-- Both the Courts below have discussed the judgments of this Court, wherein it is held that the Gram Panchayat is competent to change the user of the land in a manner it likes as well as when sufficient area of Shamlat land is available, it can be used for any other development work and injunction cannot be granted regarding change of nature of land.

-- Even a perusal of the plaint further shows that it is nowhere mentioned that the passage of the temple will be blocked, rather it is a case of Gram Panchayat that there is difference of about 400 ft. between the temple and the Community Hall.

Court found no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned orders passed by the Courts below dismissing the application for stay -- Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.

(Para 9-11)