Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.450 of 1985
Major Dalip Singh (Retd.)
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 20/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr.P.C.Goyal, Addl.A.G.Punjab.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr.P.N.Aggarwal, Advocate.
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, S.9A(i)--Ejectment--Reserved Area--Resettlement of tenant on alternative land equivalent to 5 standard acres--Protection under Section 9A(i)--Available to member of armed forces--But once he is retired then necessity of this benefit would go as he would be in position to self cultivator land--Petitioner already retired from service of army not entitled to protection under Section 9A(i). (P. 9)
-----------------
Smt. Balwinder Kaur v. Punjab through Collector
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Civil Revision No. 1308 of 2009
Smt. Balwinder Kaur
v.
Punjab through Collector, Ropar Tehsil and District, Ropar and Ors.
{Decided on 08/07/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate,
IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment of plaint--Cannot be allowed if a valuable right has already accrued, in favour of the opposite party, on account of lapse of time, and the claim which is sought to be added, by way of amendment is beyond the period of limitation.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6, R.17--Amendment of plaint--Cannot be allowed if a valuable right has already accrued, in favour of the opposite party, on account of lapse of time, and the claim which is sought to be added, by way of, amendment is beyond the period of limitation. (P. 11)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6, R.17--Amendment of plaint--Where the right has accrued, by lapse of time, it could not be taken away by granting amendment of the plaint. (P.11)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6, R.17--Amendment of plaint--Filed suit on 23.04.2005--Order dated 23.03.2005 appointing another person in place of petitioner, was already in existence and in knowledge--Petitioner did not file an application for amendment until 02.09.2008 seeking challenge to order dated 23.03.2005 on account of lapse of time, available right as accrued in favour of respondent--Amendment of plaint rightly rejected. (P. 11)
------------------
Anil Kumar Kohli v. General Public & Ors.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
F.A.O. No. 2135 of 2006
Anil Kumar Kohli
v.
General Public & Ors.
{Decided on 30/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Rajinder Chhibbar, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Meenu Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 4: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Dhiraj Narula, Advocate, for Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate.
Succession Act, 1925, Ss.2(f), 218, 222 & 276--Grant of probate--Jurisdiction of Probate Court--Probate Court require only to look into Will to extent as to whether Will in question is last Will and duly executed and attested in accordance with law and at time of execution of Will testator had sound disposing mind--Except for Will appellant had no right to claim any property on basis of memorandum of settlement--Learned Court below should have granted probate certificate on basis of Will but had no jurisdiction to interpret Will in order to decide even share of appellant, respondent no.5 and respondent nos. 2 to 4--Matter remanded back to trial Court to decide question of probate of Will itself without looking into family settlement.
(Paras 17, 18 & 19)
------------------