Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Round Up: May 23- May 29, 2022

Nominal IndexParo and others v. Mahindo 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111Simarjit Kaur @ Simerjeet Kaur @ Simarjeet Kaur versus Maninder Kaur 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 112Rakesh Khanna @ Babbu v. Gulzari Lal and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 113Ankush Rawat v. Guru Nanak Education Trust and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 114Novex Communications Private Limited v. Union of India and another2022 LiveLaw (PH) 115Amit v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 116Mahavir singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 117Vasu Syal v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 118Parveen Mehta Versus Vishal Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 119Rinku Singh Versus Union of India2022 LiveLaw (PH) 120Munshi Ram versus Vidya Devi and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 1211. Courts Must Exercise Discretion To Condone Delay In Filing Written Statement After Due Circumspection: Punjab And Haryana High CourtCase Title : Paro and others v. MahindoCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ferozepur via which petitioner's defense was struck off, held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC are directory in nature, however, the Courts must exercise their discretion to condone the delay in filing the written statement after exercising due circumspection and if it appears that the defendant has attempted to engage in dilatory tactics, the Courts should nip the same unhesitatingly. "The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC no doubt are directory in nature, however, at the same time the Courts must exercise their discretion to condone the delay, if any, in filing the written statement after exercising due circumspection and in case there appears to be an attempt on the part of the defendant to engage in dilatory tactics, the Courts should nip the same unhesitatingly", the Court observed. The bench comprising Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul while allowing the petition, noted that the petitioners were granted four opportunities to file their written statement, however, they failed to do so.2. Inadvertent Mistake By Court While Adjourning Matter Can't Take Away Valuable Right Of Party To Lead Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High CourtCase Title: Simarjit Kaur @ Simerjeet Kaur @ Simarjeet Kaur versus Maninder KaurCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 112Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Trial Court which instead of adjourning the case for plaintiff's evidence, fixed it inadvertently for rebuttal evidence, held that the plaintiff-respondent cannot be deprived of her valuable right of leading evidence in the affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her, merely because the Court made a mistake while adjourning the matter. "Merely because an inadvertent mistake was caused by the Court while adjourning the matter the plaintiff-respondent cannot be deprived of her valuable right of leading evidence in the affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her", the Court observed. The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin was dealing with the instant revision petition challenging the order whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner for rejection of the affidavit of the witness named Narjit Singh Dhillon was dismissed.3. While Contesting Application Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Only Contents Of Plaint Are To Be Seen: Punjab & Haryana High CourtCase Title : Rakesh Khanna @ Babbu v. Gulzari Lal and OthersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 113Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order vide which the application preferred by the defendant no.1 (petitioner) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a suit for declaration of title was dismissed, held that at the time of contesting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint are to be seen and not the contents of the application or any other pleadings. The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin observed, "It is trite that at the time of contesting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint are to be seen and not those of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or any other pleadings."4. Parties Are Bound By Statements Made By Their Counsel In Court: Punjab & Haryana High CourtCase Title : Ankush Rawat v. Guru Nanak Education Trust and AnotherCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 114The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that parties are bound by the statements made by their counsel in Court. The observation was made while disallowing a review application filed against an order on the ground of an 'error apparent'. The bench comprising Justice H.S. Madaan held that the counsel for the applicant had not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Round Up: May 23- May 29, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags