Rejection of Plaint—An enquiry under O.7 R. 11 CPC can be taken up at any stage,

 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7 R.11 & O.14 R.2–Rejection of Plaint-Preliminary issues–An enquiry under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the CPC can betaken up at any stage-Merely because it is a trial on preliminary issues at the stage of Order 14, the scope does not change or expandThe stage at which such an enquiry is undertaken by the court makes no difference. (Para 7)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7 R.11 & O.14 R.2-Rejection of Plaint – Enquiry under Order 7 Rule 11 (a), only the pleadings of the plaintiff-petitioner can be looked into even if it is at the stage of trial of preliminary issues under Order 14 Rule 2(2). (Para 8)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908,0.7 R.11-Rejection of Plaint-Enquiry at that stage has to be limited only to the pleadings of the plaintiff, neither the written statement nor the averments, if any, filed by the opposite party for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the Code or any other pleadings of the respondents can be considered for that purpose.

Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal

2017(1} Law Herald (P&H) 417 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 520

Accident—Future Prospects—Even in case of agriculturist benefit of future prospects is to be allowed.

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident–License– Driver was permanent resident of Hissar, but got license issued from Nagaland-Held; Since license has been found genuine and issued by licensing authority therefore, it cannot be said there was violation of S.9 of Motor Vehicle Act-Claim upheld.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166-Accident–Future Prospects-Deceased was an agriculturist and running a dairy farm-Claimants are entitled to benefits of
increase in income for future prospects to the tune of 50%.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 206 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2433

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.14(1)–Pre existing rights-Limited rights into full ownership-

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.14(1)–Pre existing rights-Limited rights into full ownership–As per will after life time of testator land would devolve on his wife and she will have life interest in that land and will have right to have produce of land but she will not be competent to alienate same-After her death her daughter will become owner of this land-Held; wife of testator was having pre-existing rights in the property of her husband which were virtually recognized in will—Therefore, S.14{1) would be applicable and not S.14(2)–She had attained full ownership and not limited right-Sale executed by her of this land was legal and valid-Contrary findings of courts below set aside.

Surjit Kaur & Ors. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 197 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2434

Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1908, R.15– Lambardar–Appointment of- -Pendency of criminal case-

Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1908, R.15– Lambardar–Appointment of- -Pendency of criminal case-In case, somebody was levelling serious allegation against candidate that criminal cases were pending against him, the District Collector and Commissioner were under Legal obligation to notice the particulars and seriousness of those alleged criminal cases, before passing their respective impugned orders–in absence of such findings impugned order has to be held as suffering from patent illegality. (Para 5)

Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1908, R.15–Lambardar–Appointment of- -Pendency of criminal case-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, pointed out in his report that criminal cases were pending against CandidateHowever, no particulars or facts of any criminal case were even remotely referred or recorded- -It was very serious on the part of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to make such sweeping allegations, which have gone completely unsubstantiated on record and the District Collector also committed a serious error of law, while simply accepting the said unwarranted report made by the Assistant Collector 1 st Grade. (Para 4)

Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 195 : 2016 LawHeraid.Org 2425

Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988–Parole–Breach of Peace

Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988–Parole–Breach of Peace—Merely because accused stands acquitted in seven serious criminal cases is no ground to release him on parole as his conduct is sufficient to conclude that in the event of his release on parole, there is apprehension  of breach of peace in the village-Parole declined.

Sunder @ Kala v. State of Haryana & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 193 (DB) : 2016 LawHeraid.Org 2426

Electricity Connection-Bar room

Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders-Electricity Connection-Bar room, bar library, office of the Bar Association and Bar Lounge are the integral part of the Court and water and electricity expenses for electricity supply to this part of the Court shall not be charged from the Bar Associations but has to be borne by the Courts itself.

Bar Association, Zira v. State of Punjab & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 191 : 201S LawHeraid.Org 2423

Accident—Amount towards loss of supervision by owner should be added in annual income of deceased before applying the multiplier.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident –lncome of deceased-Non-resident Indian-income tax return filed abroad and certificate of auditor ignored as not duly proved but still it can be presumed that deceased was N.R.I, and having some income abroad while living in Philippines, which in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence is assessed as Rs. 1 lac per annum. (Para 15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident–Supervision of land owned by deceasedDeceased was owning 60 acres of agricultural landAmount towards loss of supervision by owner should be added in annual income of deceased before applying the multiplier. (Para 16)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166-Accident–income of deceased-Deceased was a young boy of 20 years and was a student of B.Com 2nd Year-His parents were financially sound-Notional income assessed in the year 1997, as Rs. 30.000/- per annum after deduction towards personal expenses. (Para 21)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident–Loss of Studies-Injured was student of 10th class and could not continue his studies due to injuries suffered by him– Claimant allowed Rs. 10.000/- towards loss of studies.

Vinay Sohal & Ors. v, Gurvinder Singh & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 183 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2422

 

Rejection of Plaint-Territorial Jurisdiction-

Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, S,25–Rejection of Plaint-Territorial Jurisdiction- Custody of child-Wife filed petition for custody of child aged less than 5 years at Ludhiana-Child living with father at Chandigarh-Ordinary residence of child has to be taken as residence of motherPlea of inconvenience to be decided on merits-Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, S.8–Civil Procedure Code, O.7 R.11.

Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, S.25-Custody of Child-Territorial Jurisdiction- -The expression ‘where the minor ordinarily resides’ has to be interpreted
to mean residence of the mother-Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, S.8.

Amit Kashyap v.Pooja

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 181 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2421

Accident—Negligence—Moving vehicle dashed from behind into standing vehicle—Sole negligence would be on standing vehicle.

  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Acc»dent–Contributory Negligence-­ Offending vehicle was standing on main road without any signal or parking
rightsMoving vehicle coming from behind and dashed into standing vehicle-Moving vehicle cannot be held negligent-Sole negligence would be
of standing vehicle.

The moving vehicle is required to be more careful and to look out such obstacles ‘commonly found’ on the road-It is not supposed that any obstacle can be placed on the road particularly at night time without proper signals, indicators and precautions- The above observations, if approved, will give licence and approve the act of wrongdoers, who may leave their vehicles in middle of the road thereby jeopardizing the lives of travellers on the road during night time-The finding of the Tribunal holding drivers of both the vehicles equally liable for accident are set aside and it is held that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of driver of the offend­ing vehicle.           

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident–Consortium–Deceased was aged 38 years working as driver earning Rs. 40001- p.m.–Wife held entitled to Rs. 40, 000/- towards loss of consortium.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident-Consortium-Love and Affection-­ Deceased was aged 38 years working as driver earning Rs. 4000/- p.m.Three children held entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/–Mother of deceased also held entitled to Rs. 40,000/- for loss of love and affection.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident–Consortium–Love and Affection-­ Damage to Vehicle-Tempo was damaged beyond repairs-Compensation for this enhanced from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1 lakhs.

Manjit Kaur & Ors. v. Jagtar Singh & Ors.

2017(1) Law Heraid (P&H) 174 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2420

Execution of decree—Framing of Issues—It is not incumbent upon the Executing Court to frame issues in every case irrespective of the merits of the objection petition.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.101–Execution of decree-Framing of Issues- -It is not incumbent upon the Executing Court to frame issues in every case irrespective of the merits of the objection petition.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.52-Execution of decree -Lis pendens- There was no requirement in law for the decree-holder to challenge the award or the agreement to sell-Under the circumstances, even if the Court has not allowed a decree declaring the said award and agreement having no affect upon rights of the decee-holder, it would be of no consequence nor can ensure to benefit of the appellant-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.101.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.101 -Agreement to sell-Execution of decree- -It may not always be necessary for the plaintiff to specifically claim possession over the property, the relief of possession being inherent in the relief for specific performance of the contract of sale-Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16.   

Sonia Bhatia v.Jai Gopal Kohli (now deceased) through his LRs

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 171 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2419

Accident–Claim Petition

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident–Claim Petition-When the testimony of eye-witness found unreliable due to contradictory statements then the mere fact that the challan has been presented by police against driver of the offending vehicle, cannot be a reason to discard the finding of the Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition.

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident–Claim Petition-Unreliable Eye-witness- -Father of deceased contended that he took his son to hospital and he died on the way–Whereas doctor had identified the deceased through driving licence from pocket of deceased as there was no relative with deceased—Driver of three wheeler who brought the deceased had also left-Claim petition dismissed though FIR was lodged within 3 hours of occurrence.    

Salindro Devi & Ors. v. Jaswinder Singh & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 166 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2418

Expert Evidence-Stamp on receipt—Eviction

Evidence Act, 1872, S.45–Expert Evidence-Stamp on receipt—Eviction—Tenant relying upon receipts contending to have been issued by previous landlord- Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to him if report of printing press is called to ascertain year of printing of stamps-East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949– Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, S.13.

Kailash Chand Bansal v. Ritu Mittal & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 165 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2414

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6 R.17–Amendment of Plaint-Mere fact that petitioner has not specifically sought a declaration to get order of revenue authority set-aside

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6 R.17–Amendment of Plaint-Mere fact that petitioner has not specifically sought a declaration to get order of revenue authority set-aside by alleging it to be null and void and not effective qua his rights but had sufficient pleadingsAmendment sought was formal in nature-­Amendment allowed after 4 years of filing plaint.

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6 R.17–Amendment of Plaint-Amendment sought to specifically plead what was already in pleadings can be termed as formal In nature and should be allowed.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6 R.17–Amendment of Plaint-Governing Principles–That the amendment is necessary for complete and effective
adjudication of the matter in controversy and the same does not cause prejudice to the other party for which he cannot be compensated with costs were reiterated.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6 R.17–Amendment of Plaint-Application being mala fide- No such plea raised by petitioner-Plaint contained pleadings in regard to amendment sought though not specifically mentioned-Application of  party allowed even after 4 years of filing original plaint.

Hardeep Dass @ Deep Dass v.  Kuldeep Dass Chela Gopal Dass Chela Ram Dass & Anr.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 162 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2412

-Enlargement of time-Deposit of balance sale consideration

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.148–Enlargement of time-Deposit of balance sale consideration- In a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell has held that the decree passed in such a suit is to be treated as a preliminary decree and the Court does not cease to have jurisdiction to extend the period for deposit of balance sale consideration.

 Milkha Singh (deceased) through his LR Surinder Singh & Ors. v.  Mst. Achhari & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 160 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2413

Divorce—By Mutual Consent—Payment of amount as compromised not a ground to waive off statutory period.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13-B–Divorce–By Mutual Consent-Waiving off statutory periodPlea for waiving off statutory period of six months not
maintainable-Order passed by the Apex Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be used as a precedent for decision by the High Court.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13-B–Divorce–By Mutual Consent-Earlier also parties filed the application u/s 13-B but withdrew at stage of second motion—Payment of amount as compromised not a ground to waive off statutory period.

 Darshan Singh Dhillon v. Parminder Kaur

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 159 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2410

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.51 & S.20–Disqualification–Show cause notice

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.51 & S.20–Disqualification–Show cause notice-­ Deputy Commissioner is entitled to issue show cause notice to the petitioner-­ Mere issuance of such notice does not lead to disqualification of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch—The contention that in view of Article 243(O) of the Constitution, the Deputy Commissioner cannot resort to proceedings under Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, is not only untenable but misconceived-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 243(o).

Jagdish v.  State of Haryana & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 157 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2409

Res judicata—Principle of res judicata applies to different stages of proceedings in the same suit.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 11 — Res judicata- Principle of res judicata applies to different stages of proceedings in the same suit.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.18 R.17 & S.11–Rebuttal evidence-Comparison of  signatures-Earlier similar application was declinedTherefore, petitioner cannot be permitted to file successive applications for seeking the same relief-Principles of res judicata applicable.

Surinder Saini v. Simmi Saini & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 156 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2408

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.18 R.17–Rebuttal Evidence-Comparison of Signatures

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.18 R.17–Rebuttal Evidence-Comparison of Signatures-The fact that the original sale deed was not available with the
petitioner at the relevant time would not create a right in his favour to lead evidence in rebuttal as the petitioner was well within his right to call upon
the defendants to produce the original sale deed on record-Petition dismissed.

Joginder Ram v.  Ajit Singh & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 154 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2407

Dismissal of Suit– Non payment of publication charges— provision is applicable to a suit and not to application for final decree.

 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908,0.9 R.2-Dismissal of Suit–Non payment of publication charges-Provision is applicable to a suit and not to application for final decree.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908,0.9 R.2–Dismissal of Suit–Non Payment of Publication charges- If a suit is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC, the plaintiff can seek its restoration by invoking the provisions of Order 9 Rule 4 CPC or file a fresh suit within the stipulated period of limitation. (Para 5)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.9 R.2-Dismissal of Suit–Non Payment of publication charges-Application for final decree was dismissed under O.9 R.2 though it was not applicable-Order set aside by invoking S.151 whereas remedy lies under O.9 4–Held; since no prejudice caused due to quoting of wrong provision-Impugned order upheld.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Wrong Provision-Quoting a wrong provision in law will not prejudicially affect the right of a party to seek redressal of his grievance unless the contesting party is able to show that a prejudice has been caused to him because of quoting of a wrong provision. (Para 5)

Chander Sareen v.  Saroj Sareen & Ors.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 152 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2405

Punjab Jail Manual, 1996, Para 559-A–Meeting with Undertrial—

Punjab Jail Manual, 1996, Para 559-A–Meeting with Undertrial -Not only the relatives but friends also are entitled to meet the undertrial prisoner subject to two interviews in a week.

Punjab Jail Manual, 1996, Para 559-A-Meeting with Undertrial–lt is a for fetched an imagination that undertrial is having in his possession documents required for the cases pending against him-Permission cannot be granted to meet under trial for this purpose especially when advocates appointed by under trial prisoner are regularly meeting him for said purpose.

Rampal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 151 (DB) : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2411