Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Revision No.822 of 2009 (O&M)
Suresh Chand Jain @ Harish Chand Jain
v.
Mani Ram
{Decided on 30/11/2009}
For the Petitioner: Ms. Neena Madan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.41, R.27--Additional Evidence at appellate stage--Tenant sought to produce statement of landlord recorded in another case and report of expert obtained much after decision of Rent Controller--Would not fit in any of requirement of Order 41, Rule 27--Case is to be decided on basis of pleadings and evidence that is led in trial--A version given by witness in another case can also not be termed as relevant evidence--Appellate authority not justified in allowing tenant to lead additional evidence--Impugned order set aside.
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.41, R.27--Additional Evidence at appellate stage--Conditions to be satisfied are:
(i) Additional evidence can be allowed if the court against whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted.
(ii) Additional evidence can also be allowed where party producing the same is able to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
(iii) A discretion is also left with the Appellate Court and it can allow any document to be produced or any witness to be examined if it is of the view that the same is required to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. (P.2)
------------
Net Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
902 - 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 118 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 12763 of 1992 (O&M)
Net Ram & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 21/12/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondent No1: Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Village Common Land--Issue of validity of Section 13(B) at time of hearing of writ petition--Not illegal.
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, S.2(g) (6) and 13-B (As amended by Haryana Act No.9 of 1992)--Validity of Section 13(B) at time of hearing of writ petition--Not illegal issue being stand concluded by Full Bench. (P.3)

------------
Piara Singh @ Mukhtiar Singh v. Jagsir Singh
903 - 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
RSA No. 3741 of 2006
Piara Singh @ Mukhtiar Singh
v.
Jagsir Singh and Ors.
{Decided on 12/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. K.S. Shekhon, Advocate.
Registration Act, 1908--Consent Decree--Setting aside--Suit for declaration--Consent decree does not require registration in view of provisions of Section 17(2) (vi) of Registration Act and was enforceable at law--Decree not result of fraud and mis-representation--Suit for setting aside decree filed in 2000 whereas decree related to year 1994 is barred by time--Consent decree liable to be upheld. (P.12)
-------------