A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (v of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2, Section 11, Explanation IV of Section 11 – Eviction proceedings – Title suit thereafter – Maintainability of -- Once, the application filed u/s 7 of the Act is decided in which question of title, though available, is not raised, it puts an end to the controversy regarding the question of title which cannot be raised thereafter by filing a suit u/s 11 of the Act -- Subsequently a suit filed u/s 11 of the Act to establish the question of title shall not be maintainable.

(Para 8, 18-20)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Title suit – In case, if the title of a person is threatened by the Gram Panchayat or anybody else, he can always file a suit u/s 11 of the Act for seeking declaration for having acquired the right, title or interest in the property in question.

(Para 19)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 21-A -- Title suit – Limitation -- Whether the suit filed u/s 11 of the Act is time barred in view of Rule 21-A of the Rules if it is not filed within 30 days from the date of accrual of cause of action? – Held, cases in which application u/s 7 of the Act is not filed but a person or a Panchayat seeks a declaration of their right, title or interest in the land vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat then the suit has to be filed within the period of 30 days from the date of accrual of the cause of action as provided in Rule 21-A of the Rules which means that the suit has to be filed when the right, title or interest is threatened and not at any time otherwise Rule 21-A(1) of the Rules provided in the Rules will become redundant.

(Para 21)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 449, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Appeal against acquittal – Condonation of delay of 111 days – Declined  -- Reason/ground for condonation of delay in the application has not specifically been explained – State does not have the right to file appeals at belated stage on the ground of procedural delay -- State is expected to expedite the matter in case they want to prefer appeal against judgment of acquittal or conviction -- No proper explanation has been given by the State -- Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 449, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 – Murder case -- Appeal against acquittal – Trial Court gave a specific finding that accused was not named neither by the complainant nor by PW-5 stating him to be a part of conspiracy -- As per FSL report, the weapon was found to be in a working condition but none of the live cartridges were ever used by respondent/ accused in the commission of offence – By giving the benefit of doubt, he has rightly been acquitted.

(Para 16)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68, 73 -- Agreement to sell – Execution of -- Proof of -- Evidence led on file by the plaintiff in the form of stamp vendor and the attesting witness has duly proved the execution of the agreement – Not only this, the plaintiff has also proved on record that he was present before the Sub-Registrar twice, once on the original target date fixed in the agreement and second time; after he had issued notice to the defendant for execution of the sale deed -- Courts below have not committed any illegality in holding that the plaintiff has been successful in proving the execution of the agreement.

(Para 7)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 19 -- Recovery suit – Limitation -- In case of a suit for recovery of money; per se, the limitation is to start from the date of the payment of the money, however, that limitation is applicable only in cases of pure money transaction of advancement of loan or otherwise.

(Para 8)

C. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 55 – Agreement to sell -- Recovery suit for earnest money – Limitation would start from the date of refusal of the execution of the agreement; as defined under the agreement; or from the date of knowledge of the fraud, if any, found committed in the alleged agreement.

(Para 8)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Letters Patent Appeal -- Condonation of delay – Sufficient cause -- Though the expression “sufficient cause” is not defined in the Act but it has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case to accept or reject the application – Reason assigned as a sufficient cause by the applicants/ appellants is of the “lengthy departmental procedure" for filing the appeal -- Order is dated 15.2.2017, certified copy made available on 07.03.2017, Advocate General granted sanction on 12.6.2017 -- Applicants/appellants could have filed the present appeal immediately but the appeal was filed after a period of about 4 months without giving any explanation -- Delay has, thus, been caused because of the laxity on the part of the department -- Reason given does not fall within the definition of “sufficient cause” -- Application dismissed.

(Para 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 37 Rule 3 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Suit for recovery – Leave to defend – Condonation of delay -- Separate application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act may not have been absolutely necessary whether or not to condone the delay -- Once some reasoning was given in the application seeking leave to defend the suit, court was required to go into the grounds for delay, consider them and then pass a reasoned order accepting or rejecting the said reasons.

(Para 15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay of 312 days in filing appeal – Condonation of -- Submitted that there was construction going on in the office of the filing counsel and as such the file was erroneously misplaced and as such there has been a delay in filing of the present appeal -- Explanation for condoning 312 days delay not worthy of acceptance -- Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.

(Para 2-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Conviction in murder case – Delay in filing appeal – Dismissal of – Permissibility of -- Appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that there was delay of 1192 days in preferring the appeal -- Held, since the matter arose out of conviction u/s 302 IPC, the High Court ought to have condoned the delay and heard the matter on merit – Matter remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

(Para 3-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 17, 19, Section 96 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- First appeal dismissed in default – Restoration of appeal after 176 days delay – Condonation of delay -- Application to condone the delay dismissed -- Held, delay of 176 days cannot said to be an inordinate delay, more so, when the matter relates to the First Appeal -- Appellants having lost before the Trial Court ought to be have fair and reasonable opportunity to pursue their First Appeal -- Impugned order of the High Court set aside -- First Appeal restored.

(Para 6-8)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Domestic violence case -- Limitation -- In case of decree of divorce, the limitation to file proceedings is only one year -- In case of subsisting relationship of husband and wife, there is no limitation -- Complaint under the D.V. Act can be filed at any time as the physical and mental harassment within the family is a continuing offence.

(Para 6)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- FIR u/s 498A IPC – Maintainability of complaint under DV act -- Whether complaint under D.V. Act, is maintainable where a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is already pending? -- Both the cases are of different nature and have no bearing upon each other -- However, a Magistrate in proceedings under the D.V. Act, can also add Section 498-A IPC in order to inflict punishment upon the offender -- Held, both proceedings are of different nature and can be filed separately -- Proceedings under the D.V Act can continue on the same set of facts of a case under Section 406, 498-A IPC.

(Para 8, 9)