A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- It is well settled that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are the averments in the plaint, only the averments in the plaint are germane -- Where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the Court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the Court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the Court has no other option except to reject the same – It can be exercised by the Trial Court at any stage of the suit -- It is also settled that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Rejection of plaint -- Respondent has unambiguously averred that after sale of the property in his favour he has become landlord and owner and that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties -- Grounds on which the petitioner is seeking rejection of the ejectment petition are a matter of evidence and are not germane for deciding the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC -- Though the property in the sale deed has been described as a house, however, the petitioner is not able to deny the fact that the description of the property is identical in both the sale deed as well as the ejectment petition – Rejection of the plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences -- This power has to be used in exceptional circumstances and should be used only when the Court is absolutely sure that the plaintiff does not have an arguable case at all -- Application filed by the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application dismissed by Trial court – Revision against dismissed.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Rent laws -- Execution of eviction order – Appeal/ Stay application pending -- Executing Court declined to stay the execution, warrants of possession issued – It is in the interest of justice that the Appellate authority be directed to take a final decision upon the appeal filed by the petitioner; and till then eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question be stayed – Direction issued to Appellate Authority to decide appeal within 3 months, dispossession stayed till the decision of appeal.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Constitution of India, Article 15(3), 51-A -- Restitution of conjugal rights – Transfer of case -- Complaint is already pending before the crime against women cell, Gurugram, it would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice if the same are tried and decided at one place -- Ethos as manifested under Article 51-A of Constitution of India envisage that it shall be fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of woman -- In addition, per Article 15 (3), power has also been conferred on the State to make special provisions for women and children – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was amended w.e.f. 23.12.2003 that in case of a wife being the petitioner, jurisdiction was conferred to the Court within local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the wife is residing on the date of presentation of the petition -- Without going into the allegations/counter allegations, the transfer application allowed -- Petition transferred to the District Judge, Gurugram.

(Para 6-11)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte eviction -- Service of summons -- Service was not only effected by process server in person on the predecessor-in-interests of petitioners, but by way of munadi and affixation as well -- Munadi is known to be valid mean of substitute service in case despite service a litigant does not cause appearance before the Court – Objection taken is that there was an irregularity as the copy of petition was not served -- Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that it was well within the knowledge of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners that there was a case pending against her qua which service of summons was effected -- Even if it was not due complete service, but the fact that munadi was also effected, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to take refuge under the argument that it was a weak mode of evidence of service -- No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.

(Para 12-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17-A – Additional evidence -- Allowing of the application for leading evidence filed by the respondents by the learned trial Court will delay the finalization of the proceedings, but delay cannot have precedence over substantial justice to be done to the parties to the litigation – Petitioners held entitled for costs of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- as respondent/ plaintiff conceded to enhance the cost.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Sections 9, 96 – Consent decree -- Substantive suit to challenge the same – Appeal u/s 96 CPC as well -- Appellants not party to consent – Consent orders would consequently not have a binding effect on the Appellants -- High Court in appeal recorded a finding that since the Appellants were not a party to the proceedings, and the Order has been passed on the terms agreeable to the parties to the proceedings, it shall not be binding upon the Appellants, and their rights could be examined independently in the substantive suit filed at their instance – No interference called for.

(Para 16-19)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Delay in decisioning of suit – Speedy disposal -- Suit was instituted in 2005, Court considered it appropriate to observe that the High Court may hear and dispose of Suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.

(Para 21)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 2 – Amendment in written statement -- Amendment sought is only explanatory -- As per the provisions of Order VI Rule 2 CPC, the pleading has to be based upon the facts in concise manner -- Amendment of pleadings for the purpose of explanation cannot be allowed.

(Para 9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111, 158 – Partition proceedings of land – Challenged in Civil suit -- Rejection of plaint -- Civil suit challenging partition proceedings on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice – Ld. trial Court is correct in observing that proceedings can always be challenged in case violation of principle of natural justice -- Section 158 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in case a suit is filed for grant of relief, which can be provided by the Revenue Officers under the Act, 1887 – That is not the case in the suit -- Application dismissed by Trail court, order upheld.

(Para 4-7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, Order 7, Rule 11 – Plea of res-judicata – Rejection of plaint -- Res judicata, is a mixed question of fact and law -- Evidence has to be led by the defendant-petitioner to be successful and, thus, plaint cannot be rejected as being barred by law.

(Para 7)

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 80 – Public premises -- Unauthorised possession – Notice under PP Act -- Civil suit with application for exemption u/s 80 CPC – Rejection of application – Adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to appear before the competent authority under the Act, 1971 but he failed to do so -- When he did put in appearance, he could not produce evidence to show that he was not in unauthorized possession -- Thereafter, he filed a civil suit, although he could not establish his rights in proceedings under the Act, 1971 -- Under the circumstances there was no urgency in the matter and the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application.

(Para 2-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (v of 1908), Order 9 Rule 6, Rule 13 -- Ex-parte proceedings order – Setting aside of -- Explanation given by the petitioner does not justify his actions -- Still, in the interest of justice, as petitioner has undertaken to compensate the respondents with payment of Rs.25,000/-, the impugned orders set aside and the petitioner allowed to join the proceedings, subject to the payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs.

(Para 6)

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, 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)