November 2017

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.201–Bifurcation of Gram Panchayat-Merely because the prescribed authority took more than 16 years in dividing the assets between two Gram Panchyats would not revive the cause of action to question the very bifurcation

By | November 17th, 2017|Categories: Punjab Panchayati Raj Act|

The amendment of written statement stands on different pedestal, than the amendment of plaint—Defendant is entitled to take even inconsistent plea while amending the written statement.

By | November 16th, 2017|Categories: Amendment of written statement|

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Permanent injunction-Preliminary Issue-Arbitration Agreement-Application for treating existence of arbitration clause as preliminary issue-Application rightly dismissed

By | November 15th, 2017|Categories: Specific Relief Act|

Execution of Decree—Partnership Firm—Partners in the judgment debtors firm can be proceeded against individually, only if the conditions laid down under Order 21 Rule 50(2) CPC are satisfied.

By | November 15th, 2017|Categories: Execution|

Summary Suit—Summons—The procedure prescribed under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC and sub-Rules have to be complied with after compliance of Order 37 Rule 2 CPC—The requirement of Order 37 Rule 2 CPC is that the summons of the suit shall be in Form No.4 Appendix B.

By | November 15th, 2017|Categories: Summons|

Amendment of Written Statement-Belated Stage—Not even a whisper as to why the facts sought to be added by way of proposed amendment could not be pleaded in original written statement- Application held to be rightly dismissed

By | November 14th, 2017|Categories: Amendment of written statement|

Agreement to Sell-Specific Performance—During pendency of suit for specific performance seller entered into another agreement with subsequent purchaser—Application for impleadment by subsequent prospective purchaser held to be justified

By | November 14th, 2017|Categories: Impleading Party to Suit|

Additional Evidence—Cause of action accrued to plaintiff only after acceptance of application for secondary evidence by defendant—Plaintiff is entitled to lead additional evidence in this regard.

By | November 13th, 2017|Categories: Evidence - Civil|

Since plaintiffs were claiming themselves to be owners in possession of joint property, they were not seeking any consequential relief of possession therefore ad valorem court fee was not payable

By | November 12th, 2017|Categories: Court Fees|

Condonation of Delay—Delay of 242 days in filing first appeal—Explanation furnished not wholly unacceptable, even if there are some omissions—Delay is not inordinate, nor have any third party rights come—Delay condoned.

By | November 12th, 2017|Categories: Limitation Act|

Rape—Acquittal—Sexual inter-course by a man with his own wife and the wife being under 18 years of age, if more than one year has elapsed from the date of the commission of the offence—Court cannot take cognizance of offence u/s 376IPC.

By | November 11th, 2017|Categories: Acquittal|