Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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

Latest Legal News