'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

High Court Sets Aside Trial Court's 'Unjust' Order, Directs Framing of Specific Additional Issue

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a trial court order, terming it as "unjust" and emphasizing the "duty of the trial Court to frame specific issues based on pleadings." The judgement was delivered by Justice Amarjot Bhatti on September 25, 2023.

Malkit Singh, the petitioner, had approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order of the trial court. The latter had dismissed his application for framing additional issues in a civil suit for recovery based on a pro-note and a receipt. The respondent, Balwinder Singh, had contested the suit and claimed that the documents were forged and fraudulent. Despite this specific stand, the trial court failed to frame an issue on it, stating it was already covered under an existing issue.

Justice Bhatti, while delivering the judgement, observed, "It is the duty of the trial Court to frame issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties." The High Court further stated that "once a specific stand was taken by the defendant, the Court was required to frame specific issue on the same."

The Court accepted the civil revision petition filed by Malkit Singh and directed the trial court to frame an additional issue concerning the stand taken by the defendant in preliminary objection No. 3.

The judgement came as a relief to the petitioner, represented by Advocate Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, who had argued that the trial court's failure to frame specific issues based on the defendant's preliminary objections was unjust and violated the principles of natural justice.

Date of Decision: 25.09.2023

Malkit Singh vs Balwinder Singh 

 

Latest Legal News