CPC
CPC O. 47 R. 1 – – Application for review can be maintained on the strength of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by it at the time the judgment or order was passed; or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; or for any other sufficient reason – A review application is not the means for a party to improve its case by belatedly producing material that was available with it all along.
read HERE PLRONLINE 416387 PLRONLINE 416387
Read moreCPC, 1908 – Easmentary rights – Own stand of the petitioner that she in no manner elucidated that how the parking of a mere trolley was causing hindrance and a cause of concern which affects her easmentary rights – Since the suit has been filed by the plaintiff, the onus lay upon her to establish through evidence her case to the hilt and cannot be allowed to create evidence through appointment of Local Commissioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, for the petitioner. read here PLRonline 461574, PLRonline 461574
Read moreCPC O. 9 R. 2 – Appeal – Appellants did not deposit the costs imposed by way of an earlier order – Taking a serious view of these lapses, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as against respondent Nos.2, 3 and 6, by taking recourse to Order 9 Rule 2 CPC – Application seeking recall of the orders dismissed – Order of the Appellate Court, may prove to be fatal, given the fact that they were amongst the plaintiffs in whose favour the suit was partly decreed – In effect, the entire appeal would stand at risk, even if it is continued as against the other respondents – Further, the explanation set out by the appellants in their application demonstrated that the lapses on their part were not serious enough – Order set aside – Petition allowed.
read HERE PLRONLINE 419387 PLRONLINE 419387
Read moreCPC O. 47 R. 1- Postulates that such ‘new and important matter or evidence’, despite exercise of due diligence by the party, could not be produced at the time of passing of the order – In effect, such ‘new or important matter or evidence’ must have been in existence even at the time of disposal of the case but it could not be produced for bonafide reasons – The said expression would not take within its ambit an order which was passed after the disposal of the case with the sole intention of invalidating the basis of such disposed.
read HERE PLRONLINE 416387 PLRONLINE 416387
Read more
CPC O. 21 R. 32 – Executing Court is required to arrive at a finding that the JD has wilfully disobeyed the decree – If no such material is there , has ot dismiss the execution petition.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 21 Rule 32 – Before passing an order under O. 21 R....
Read moreCPC O. 41 R. 31, S. 96 – High Court has neither re- appreciated the entire evidence on record nor has given any specific findings on the issues which were even raised before the learned Trial Court – High Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it as a First Appellate Court;
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order XLI Rule 31, S. 96 – First Appeal - High Court has...
Read more
CPC O. 39, R. 2-A – Sale of share out of the joint khata – not a violation of an interim order of injunction
CPC O. 39, R. 2-A – Sale of share out of the joint khata - Which has never been partitioned...
Read more
CPC O. 6 R. 17 – every passing moment may give a fresh cause of action to a party to institute a suit for permanent injunction
Mr. Abdul Shehbaz Thind, for the petitioner. Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, for the respondents Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of...
Read moreCPC O. 7 R. 10 – Application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC should not be kept pending till decision on application under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 7 Rule 10 – Plea that the application under Order 7 Rule...
Read more
CPC O. 39 R. 1 – Co-sharers – Mere raising of construction on joint property by one of the co-sharers cannot be termed to be an act of ouster of other co-sharers – Status quo, vacated
Mr. Sandeep Yadav, for the petitioner. Ms. Sehaj Sandhawalia, for Resps Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) Section 151...
Read moreCPC O. 6 R. 17 – The admission, as such, which was made regarding the relationship was, thus, sought to be withdrawn by way of proposed amendment and a totally new and inconsistent case is sought to be set up and would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiffs and alter the character of action – Not permissible
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 6, Rule 17 – In the written statement filed, it was admitted...
Read moreCPC O. 7 R. 11 – Suit valuation – Raised through application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff – Application rightly rejected by the Trial Court.
CPC O. 7 R. 11 - Suit valuation - Raised through application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at...
Read more
CPC S. 11 – Res judicata – Suit property same – Reliefs prayed different – Does not bar.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), S. 11 – Res judicata – Suit for injunction filed by the present...
Read more
CPC O. 7 R. 11(a) – Limitation – When a suit Ex facie indicates that it is barred by the law of limitation courts are bound to terminate the suit so as to avoid wastage the judicial time and to avoid inconvenience and hardship to the parties.
CPC O. 7 R. 11(a) – Limitation - When a suit Ex facie indicates that it is barred by the...
Read more
CPC O. 1 R. 8 – is applicable when there are numerous persons having the same interest – Court is requested to direct the plaintiff to implead all the co-owners as party-defendants and thereafter, proceed with the matter
Anil Kshetarpal, J. / Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, for the petitioner / P&H Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order...
Read more
