Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

Maintainability of Third-Party Applications Must Follow Proper Procedural Compliance: Nainital High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has remitted a case back to the trial court for proper adjudication concerning the rights of a third party in possession disputes. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma on 24th June 2024, underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements when third parties seek to protect their possession under Order XXI, Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The case originated from an Original Suit (O.S. No.76 of 1991) filed by Anirudh Kumar seeking a decree for partition. The trial court passed a preliminary decree on 16th December 2000, declaring Anirudh Kumar the owner of a 1/3 share in a specified land parcel. The appellants, Upendra Kumar Sharma alias Bhagat and another, were not parties to the original suit but later filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 99 CPC, claiming ownership and possession of adjacent land and seeking dismissal of the execution proceedings initiated by Anirudh Kumar.

The High Court’s primary focus was on the procedural aspect of the case. The trial court and the appellate court had dismissed the appellants’ applications without framing issues or allowing the parties to present evidence. Justice Alok Kumar Verma emphasized that any application under Order XXI, Rule 99 CPC must follow due procedure similar to a suit, involving the framing of issues and the leading of evidence.

The court acknowledged the appellants’ contention that they possessed the land in question and that their rights should be adjudicated through a thorough legal process. It was noted that the dismissal of their application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC in a previous instance did not preclude them from seeking relief under Order XXI, Rule 99 CPC when a new cause of action arose.

Justice Verma extensively discussed the procedural requirements under Order XXI, Rules 97-99 CPC, emphasizing that these provisions aim to resolve disputes related to possession during the execution of decrees. He stated, “The procedural safeguards are essential to ensure that the rights of all parties, including third parties claiming possession, are adequately protected.”

Justice Verma remarked, “It was incumbent upon the learned trial court to first frame issues and then permit the parties to lead evidence before deciding the application under Order XXI, Rule 99 CPC.”

The High Court’s decision to remit the case to the trial court for fresh adjudication highlights the judiciary’s commitment to procedural fairness and justice. By setting aside the impugned orders and directing the trial court to follow proper procedural steps, the judgment ensures that the appellants’ claims are duly considered. This decision is expected to reinforce the importance of procedural compliance in executing decrees and protecting third-party rights in possession disputes.

Case Title:Upendra Kumar Sharma alias Bhagat and Another vs. Anirudh Kumar

Date of Decision: 24th June 2024

Similar News