Order 1 Rule 10 – Necessary party -- For seeking impleadment in any pending litigation, applicant has to prove that he has interest in the lis and his valuable rights are involved in the lis or without his presence lis can not be decided effectively. Kartar Chand v. Financial Commissioner, Appeal, Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 127 (P&H).
Order 6 Rule 17 – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- NRI landlord – Leave to defend -- Amendment in pleadings -- Tenant has not averred in the application for amendment as to when he came to know about the fact which he wanted to incorporate in his application under Section 18-A of the Act -- In the absence of the material particulars about the time when the petitioner allegedly came to know about the alleged subsequent event -- Amendment is wholly frivolous and has been rightly declined by the Rent Controller. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).
Order 9 Rule 3,4 – Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 81 – Punjab Nagar Palika Election Rules, 1994 -- Election petition – Dismissed in default – Restoration of – Application signed by Advocate – Maintainability of -- If the application for restoration is not signed by the appellant but it is signed by his Advocate, then that will be sufficient because an Advocate is an authorized agent of the party and is also authorized under the power of attorney in his favour to sign the applications. Sukhpreet Singh v. Jatinder Kumar and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 662 (P&H).
Order 9 Rule 3,4, Order 19 Rule 1 – Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 81 – Punjab Nagar Palika Election Rules, 1994 -- Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Volume 1, Chapter 14, Part E, Rule 11 -- Election petition – Dismissed in default – Restoration of – Neither the CPC nor the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court provides for filing of affidavit in support of an application for restoration of the suit/election petition which has been dismissed in default, yet under Order 19 Rule 1 of the CPC, the Court can always demand an affidavit and if despite the order of the Court the affidavit is not filed, then the said application deserves rejection. Sukhpreet Singh v. Jatinder Kumar and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 662 (P&H).
Order 22 Rule 2 and 9 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Application for bringing on record the Legal representative of the appellant – Condonation of delay -- Explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay -- Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court -- In addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution -- Statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation for bringing the legal representatives on record, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay -- Applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner -- An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such applications. Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 325 (SC).
Order 22 Rule 2 and 9 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Appeal by landlord before Supreme Court – Sole Proprietor died during the pendency of the appeal -- Application for bringing on record the Legal representative of the appellant after delay of 778 days -- Condonation of delay -- Except for a vague averment that the legal representatives were not aware of the pendency of the appeal before the Court, there is no other justifiable reason stated in the one page application -- No reason or sufficient cause shown as to what steps were taken during this period and why immediate steps were not taken by the applicant, even after they admittedly came to know of the pendency of the appeal before the Court -- It is the abnormal conduct on the part of the applicants, particularly son who had appeared in the trial and was fully aware of the proceedings, but still did not inform the counsel of the death of his father – No ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay of 778 days in filing the application. Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 325 (SC).
Section 100 – Second Appeal – Power of -- High Court cannot interfere with the findings of learned lower first appellate court on facts but when the findings are the outcome of misreading of document, and perverse, being contrary to the settled law then the High Court under section 100 of the Code can always interfere, as interpretation of a document is a question of law. Smt.Gejo (dead) through LRs. v. Kanwar Raj Singh (dead) through LRs. & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 257 (P&H).
Section 107, Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) -- Additional evidence – Rule 27(1)(b) empowers the Appellate Court to give permission for additional evidence if the Court itself requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined for the purpose of its assistance for coming to a just conclusion and for any other substantial cause -- Substantial cause though has not been defined, therefore, it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case -- Even if the documents, namely, jamabandis were within knowledge of the appellants, the Court can always allow it in terms of Order 41 Rule 27(1) (b) of the CPC – Documentary evidence which cannot be created or manufactured for the first time after the decision of the suit i.e. any official document whose authenticity is not in dispute and is capable of assisting the Court to take final decision in respect of the dispute between the parties, such evidence should not normally be disallowed to be taken on record. Gurdial Singh and others v. Mam Chand and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 579 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment