Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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