Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.151-Consolidation of Suits–Same property Same parties—Suit for injunction was filed by respondent in 2011 wherein plaintiff’s evidence has been concluded–Petitioner filed suit for declaration in 2015 that property in dispute was coparcenary property and therein plaintiffs evidence is yet to commence—Held; no purpose would be served by consolidation of both the suits-Application dismissed. (Para 5)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.151 -Consolidation of Suits-Same property Same parties-No explanation how suit for injunction, restraining dispossession, would have impact on suit for declaration that property was coparcenary property- Application dismissed.
Aadish Aggarwal v. Brijeshwar Sarup
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 296 : 2017 LawHeraid.Org 534
Civil Procedure Code, 1908,0.6 R.17–Amendment of pleadings–Amendment has been sought only on the ground that there was typographical mistake as instead of word “incorrect” word “correct” was mentioned at only one place in the written statement–Amendment allowed.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6 R.17 & S.151–Amendment of Pleadings-The Courts has power to allow the amendments in the pleadings by exercising the inherent powers in certain appropriate cases by considering the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the process of the Court—To hold otherwise would result in miscarriage of justice.
Kumari Kumud Jain v. Vijay Kumar
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 294 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 533
Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, S.2(15)–Water Course–Restoration of– Watercourse running more than twenty years and dismantled, then the same can always be restored. (Para 5)
Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, S.2(15)–Water Course–Existence of–The Warabandi record and sketch plan dated 31.7.1971 noticed by the authorities clearly depicted that the watercourse in question was in existence, therefore, was covered under the provisions of Section 2(15) of 1974 Act. (Para 6)
Words & Phrases-Dhani-Residential Area.
Ram Kumar v. Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services Circle-l, Hisar
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 292 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 532
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.9 R.13–Exparte Decree–Setting aside of-–An ex-parte decree can be set aside when the case is to be made out and the party is not at fault or where the absence of the party is caused on account of a mistake of the Court and an ex-parte order has been obtained by fraud upon the Court or by collusion. (Para 10)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.9 R.13–Exparte Decree-Setting aside of–Simply it has been mentioned that wrong date was noted down and the application was also moved after a delay of approximately 10 years by mentioning the wrong fact that the petitioner were not aware about the status of the case whereas an application was already moved, which was dismissed—The conduct of the petitioner shows that they have not approached High Court with clean hands- Application dismissed.
Delhi Financial Corporation v. Purshottam Dass Garg
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 289 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 531
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.10–Stay of Proceedings-Second application-First application was dismissed for want of documents and not on merits—Second application filed with all the documents which were missing in earlier application—Second application cannot be held as non maintainable—Civil Court directed to reconsider the second application.
Gurnam Singh v. Satnam Singh Sandhu
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 288 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 530
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307–Attempt to Murder–Acquittal—Accused had not aimed at the vital part of the body with an intention to cause his death—Doctor had not deposed that injuries sustained by violation was dangerous to life-Bed Head ticket of private hospital was also not produced—Virtually no legal evidence to establish intention to cause death—Accused held to be rightly acquitted.
State of Haryana v Gurnam Singh
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 286 (DB) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 529
Stamp Act, 1899, S.50–Refund of unused non-judicial stamp–Non-Judicial stamp papers, duly spoiled, not used for execution of an instrument can be returned for refund only within the period of limitation prescribed in Section 50(2) of the Act and in case such an application is not filed within the prescribed period, it is liable to be rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation.
M/s P.C. Jain Textile Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 283 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 542
Service Law—Punishment—On the basis of the same misconduct, two separate punishments cannot be awarded by the department at different times, one during the service and another after the retirement—Once, the petitioner has been awarded punishment by the department for the misconduct during his service, then after his retirement, on the basis of the same misconduct, which resulted into his conviction, another punishment cannot be awarded by the department-Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1920, R.22(a).
Tejwant Singh v. State of Punjab
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 281 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 528
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302–Murder–Dying Declaration–Acquittal–Police officer recorded statement without certificate of doctor—No reason given for not calling Magistrate though available at distance of 2 kms–Statement was recorded in presence of relatives showing that there were chances of tutoring–Declaration held unreliable–Accused acquitted–Evidence Act, 1872, S.32.
Evidence Act, 1872, S.32–Dying Declaration—Recording of by police officer- Police could record the dying declaration If Magistrate was not available or there was no time to requisition services of a Magistrate due to precarious condition of victim but when it was so recorded by the police officer without explaining as to why services of a Magistrate were not requisitioned and further when dying declaration was recorded when the doctor has not declared that she was fit to make the statement but not in presence of doctor though he was available, such a declaration could not be relied upon.
Evidence Act, 1872, S.32–Dying Declaration–Recording of by police officer- Punjab Police Rules prescribe the following procedure:-
Service Law– Regularisation–-Pension–Once the petitioner has worked as a regular employee and an account of taking over or change of the designations ; the petitioner could not be treated as an ad hoc employee—State Government has floated scheme for regularization but case for petitioner was not forwarded by concerned department and scheme was later withdrawn-Even then petitioner held entitled to benefits of regular service— Directions issued to arrears of possession with interest.
Since, the regular employee could not be made an ad hoc employee, therefore, the State has rightly decided to regularize the services of such employees on 01.10.2003-lf the concerned District Rural Development Agency had not submitted the case of the said employees for regularization. the Government had the list of such appointees and could ask the concerned agency to submit their case-As such services of the petitioner were deserved to be regularized w.e.f. 07.07.1995 when she was appointed from regular post as a Craft Teacher to the ad hoc post of Gram Sevika even though the said policy of regularization has been withdrawn on 25.04.2007- Since, the petitioner was entitled to regularization as per the said policy w.e.f. 07.07.1995, the date on which she was appointed as Gram Sevika, therefore, she can avail the said benefit.
Indu Bala v. State of Haryana & Ors.
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 267 : 2017 LawHerafd.Org 526
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, R.67-A—Delay in Possession—Allotment was made in 1965-The claim of the appellants remained pending with the authorities for one reason or the other and the possession of the properties allotted to the displaced person was not delivered since the properties were reported to have been allotted to some other persons-There appears to be no delay on the part of the appellants in pursuing their claim and thus Rule 67-A ibid has been wrongly made applicable—Order rejecting claim set aside.
Shavinder Kaur Johal v. State of Punjab
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 264 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 525
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302–Murder–Nature of injury–Weapon used was sword, a sharp edged weapon–Deceased sustained a lacerated wound on head- Sharp edged weapon tends to cause incised wound and not a lacerated wound- Held; evidence on record establishes that accused attacked deceased with sword but there is no evidence that sharp edged portion of sword was used–Reverse side of sword should have been used–Conviction upheld.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302–Murder-Single Blow-Sudden fight-Only one injury with blunt side of sword on head was caused by accused-Held; complainant were in cultivation possession of land and had to protect their property from being trespassed-None of accused sustained any injury in the occurrence-Conviction not modifiable to one u/s 304 IPC– Conviction u/s 302 upheld.
Kuldeep @ Balkar v. State of Haryana
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 258 (DB) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 524
Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, S,20(3)–Suo motu Powers–Superintending Canal Officer is vested with suo motu powers to call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any subordinate authority. (Para 4)
Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, S.24(3)–Revision–Against the order of Divisional Canal Officer revision is maintainable before Superintending Canal Officer.
Mohan Lal v.Superintending Canal officer
2017(1) Law Heraid (P&H) 257 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 523
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482–Robbery–Reduction in Sentence–Appellant was sentenced for 7 years and has already undergone 4 years 7 months of sentence—He is neither involved or convicted in any other criminal case-Sentence reduced to already undergone—Fine enhanced—Indian Penal Code, 1860,S 394.
Shamim v. State of Haryana
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 255 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 540
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 151 – Supply of Documents- Plaintiff sought documents in the suit without showing any relevancy of those documents as the same is not mentioned in the written statement also-Application dismissed.
M/s Paul Merchants Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 253 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 521
Injunction—Panchayat can be injuncted from paving the rasta in violation of easementary rights of plaintiff—Jurisdiction of civil court would not be barred even though property is Shamlet Deh,
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–lnjunction–Panchayat dug up the Rasta paved by itself--Panchayat restrained from blocking the windows and doors of the house of plaintiff in violation of his easementary rights– Jurisdiction of civil court is not barred in such case, even though property is Shamlet Deh—Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, S.13.
Gram Panchayat v. Gurmail Singh
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 246 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 511
Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1908, R.16–Lambardar–Appointment of– -Selected candidate was aged 38 years and have sufficient land and was not suffering from any disqualification or ineligibility—Petitioner was 75 years of age though more qualified and having more land–Keeping in view advance age of petitioner, selection of younger candidate by collector upheld.
Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1908, R.16–Lambardar–Appointment of- -Being a social worker that fact alone would not be and cannot be a conclusive determinative factor.
Sukhdev Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab & Ors.
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 244 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2436
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988–Investigation–No executive instructions can be Issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation for curtailing the power of investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
H.C. Arora, Advocate v. State of Punjab & Ors.
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 242 (DB) : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2438
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306– Abetment to Suicide-Acquittal-Merely because there used to remain altercation between the deceased and the accused for some time and subsequently, the victim tried to commit suicide by consuming – sulfas medicine which ultimately resulted in her death, will not be sufficient to hold that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide.
State of Haryana v. Nirmal Kaur & Ors.
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 241 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2437
Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, S.4–Eviction–Once the demised premises are owned by the Municipal Council, the same are covered under the definition of the Public Premises Act and on termination of the tenancy due to violation of any condition of the tenancy/lease, the appropriate proceedings are under the Public Premises Act for eviction and not the rent Act.
Bhupinder Pal v. State of Punjab & Ors.
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 240 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2428