Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No. 4201 of 2006
Som Nath @ Som Parkash.
v.
Rajinder Kumar
{Decided on 29/04/2009}
For the Respondent: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate.
For the Appellant: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate.
Evidence Act, 1872--Exhibition of Document--Suit for partition--Failure to produce best available evidence--Effect--Cannot be allowed to take benefit of marked document--Partition of the property disputed--Before seeking partition condition precedent of making payment--Making of payment not proved--Receipt regarding payment was marked as Mark-D and has not been exhibited in accordance with law--More desirable if the same had been exhibited--Court is not precluded to look at a document--Failure on the part of the respondent to establish that despite best efforts, he could not produce the witness--Signature of executant stood proved on receipt by his Munim who appeared in the witness box and identified those signatures--Court was not entirely precluded from noticing the document mark-D.
----------------
Ram Singh v. Satbir
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.4360 of 2008
Ram Singh.
v.
Satbir & Ors.
{Decided on 28/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate.
Specific Relief Act, 1963--Agreement to Sell--Readiness and Willingness--Promptitude in filing the suit--Manifestation of the willingness and readiness of a plaintiff to perform his part of agreement--Further established by the fact that the respondents were present in the office of the Sub Registrar on the date fixed for execution of sale deed along with balance sale consideration and other expenses as agreed upon between the parties.
--------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2257
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.13428 of 2006
Puran Singh @ Sampuran Singh
v.
Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab, Chandigarh & Ors.
{Decided on 21/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
For the Respondent Nos.5 to 8: Mr. Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Revenue Law--Principle contained in the Civil Procedure Code would apply, especially on an aspect when the provisions in the Punjab Land Revenue Act are silent
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6, R.17--Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.111–Partition proceedings--Amendment of Plaint--Written statement filed by the respondent--Amendment of application sought for--Dismissed on the ground that it cannot be permitted as provisions of C.P.C. do not apply to the proceedings--Not proper--Principle contained in the Civil Procedure Code would apply, especially on an aspect when the provisions in the Punjab Land Revenue Act are silent.
(B) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.111--Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.16 (1)--Partition--Sanad Takseem--Appeal against order of partition--Filing of before Financial Commissioner--Dismissed being non maintainable--Finality attached to a Sanad Takseem on dismissal of appeal--Challenge there to by invoking powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India--Competent--Can also be questioned in exercise of suo-motu powers--Such power conferred upon the Financial Commissioner too.
(C) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.16 (1)--Revision--View taken by the Financial Commissioner that the revision was rendered infructous and dismissed in limine only on the ground that Sanad Takseem was issued, cannot be upheld.
--------------