high lights of 2020[3] APHC

  1. Order-1, Rule-10(2) CPC-A third party purchaser of the property in dispute-to implead her as a party to the suit.-When position of the revision petitioner in relation to the property in dispute visà-vis the 1st respondent is considered, she shall remain a proper party to the suit and not otherwise- 2nd respondent remained exparte – when the petitioner is considered as a representative of the 2nd respondent, when there is a claim to the property in dispute with reference to title set up in parallel in between the 1st and 2nd respondents, addition of the revision petitioner finds justification.
  1. Recall of  PW1 -for marking a notebook. At the time of arguments – the document was filed along with the plaint itself. When a party requires certain accommodation on the ground that the evidence to be let in has significant effect on their claim, particularly in the given facts and circumstances of the case -The trial Court should have considered such request. – allowed. For reopen – no separate petition is necessary as such no separate crp is required.
  1. Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of CPC – suit for specific performance – whether a third party be impleaded ? – third party filed a partition suit against the property – she has got joint right , title and as such she is a necessary party – if a third party is having any semblance of title or interest in the property he can be added as a party even in a suit for specific performance of contract.
  1. whether the Exchange Deed dated 14.2.1997 can be received in evidence without registration?   In the light of the catena of decisions referred above, the main purpose of marking document is to be considered. The main purpose of marking of document is to prove possession and title in an injunction suit. Therefore, the Exchange Deed sought to be marked for collateral purpose is not illegal.  STAMP DUTY AND PENALTY BE PAID.
  1. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest.-under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”). – the petitioners did not produce any document in proof of her title to the property. It is not even asserted in the petition that she got title to the said property. Therefore, the accusation made against the petitioners that they have cheated the bank on the basis of a sham and spurious document, is prima facie well founded.- No anticipatory bail .
  2. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest. – Sections 417, 420, 494, 495, 496 r/w 114 I.P.C. – when there is prima facie evidence that A1 having married again married the complaint suppressing the same and when there is clear evidence that the petitioners are the person who settled this marriage by introducing the A1 – they are not entitled for any anticipatory bail by saying that they simply attend the marriage talks is not tenable.