MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

High Court Upholds Impleadment of Legal Heirs and Assessment of Mesne Profits in Property Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, presided over by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin, resolved critical issues surrounding the impleadment of legal representatives and assessment of mesne profits in property disputes. The case titled Balwinder Singh Malhi & Another vs. Rajinder Singh Bath, dealt with the intricacies of Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The crux of the judgment lay in the interpretation of amendments to Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 CPC. The court was tasked with deciding whether the impleadment of legal heirs post the demise of a plaintiff and the assessment of mesne profits post-judgment were in accordance with legal standards.

The petitioners challenged the lower appellate court's decision allowing the impleadment of Mohinder Kaur Bath, wife of the deceased plaintiff, and the stay on judgment for payment of mesne profits. The defendant-petitioners argued that the application for impleadment was time-barred and contested the calculation of mesne profits.

Justice Sarin, in her detailed assessment, noted, "After the amendment was made by the High Court in Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 CPC, there is no limitation for impleading the LRs." This observation was critical in affirming the lower appellate court's decision on the impleadment of legal heirs.

Regarding mesne profits, the court held, "Keeping in view the location of the suit property I do not find the mesne profits assessed being excessive." This upholds the lower court's assessment, aligning with precedents that mandate fair compensation for the use of property post judgment.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. The court directed the lower appellate court to address the pending impleadment application dated 23.07.2019.

Date of Decision: 13.02.2024

Balwinder Singh Malhi & Another vs. Rajinder Singh Bath

Similar News