Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Balkar Singh v. Harnam Singh
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
C.R. No.1526 of 1989 (O&M)
Balkar Singh & Anr.
v.
Harnam Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 27/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate with Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal--Disposal of suit on merits under Order 17, Rule 2 and 3--Could be assailed only under appeal provisions of CPC--Application to set aside decree under Order 9, Rule 13--Not maintainable
(A) Civil Procedure--Exparte Decree--Setting aside of--Appeal--Disposal of suit on merits under Order 17, Rule 2 and 3--Could be assailed only under appeal provisions of CPC--Application to set aside decree under Order 9, Rule 13--Not maintainable--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 17, Rule 2 & 3. (Para 3)
(B) Civil Procedure--Exparte Decree--Setting aside of--Appeal--Disposal of suit on merit--Application under Order 9, Rule 13 for setting aside decree declined--Decree became final without appeal being filed--Finding of want of bonafides and adequate reasons for setting aside decree attained finality on factual consideration--No interference--Moreover decree has been put in execution and defendant has lost possession--Besides property is disposed of to third party--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 17, Rule 2 & 3. (Para 5)
--------------------
Ved Parkash v. Shiv Chand
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
R.S.A No. 2809 of 2008
Ved Parkash
v.
Shiv Chand & Ors.
{Decided on 21/07/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Closure of evidence by order of Court--Trial Court dismissed suit of plaintiff appellant for failure to lead evidence despite having availed six opportunities--Court by resorting to provision of higher cost which can also include punitive cost in direction of the Court--Adjournment beyond three can be granted having regard to injustice that may result on refusal thereof with reference to peculiar facts of a case--Plaintiff/appellant ready to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost not disputed by respondents--In circumstances, decree of Court below set-aside--Matter remanded back --On such deposit trial Court to grant two effective opportunities to lead entire evidence--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 17, Rule 3 (Para 3,4 & 5)
----------------
Bhupinder Singh v. Joginder Singh
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
R.S.A.No. 3598 of 1998
Bhupinder Singh
v.
Joginder Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 23/07/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. R.S. Longia Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.S. Guliani, Advocate,
(A) Civil Procedure--Trust--Suit against --Framing of scheme for administration of Gurdwara--Gurdwara in question being used by public at large--Offering from general public being used by appellant--Land attached to Gurdwara was donated by villagers--Thus, appellant had only right to maintain property but he failed to maintain any accounts--Court rightly framed a scheme for proper management of Gurdwara--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 92. (Para 12)
(B) Civil Procedure--Trust--Suit against trust--Leave of Court--Is mandatory to proceed further with suit--In peculiar facts and circumstances where general public was exparte learned District Judge rightly came to conclusion that impliedly leave had been granted to plaintiff to institute the suit--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 92 & 93. (Para 7 & 9)
(C) Resjudicata--Earlier suit filed dismissed on technical grounds--Present suit cannot be said to be barred by principle of res judicata.
----------------