NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Relationship Must Be Substantiated: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules on Application Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a crucial legal matter involving an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The case, titled ‘Gurpreet Singh vs. Balbir Singh and Another,’ revolved around a dispute over property ownership and the claim of a necessary party.

The court, presided over by HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI, delivered its verdict on November 20, 2023. The judgment shed light on the significance of substantiating relationships and the impact of prior compromises in legal proceedings.

The court emphasized the importance of establishing the legitimacy of relationships in such cases. In its observation, the court stated, “Relationship existing between the parties, as such, is not disputed.” This highlighted the necessity of clarity regarding the relationships among the involved parties.

The central Issue in the case was the claim of respondent No.2, who was the grandson of respondent No.1. The petitioner, Gurpreet Singh, was the son of respondent No.1. The court noted that a compromise had been reached between the parties in an earlier suit, which transferred the suit property to the petitioner and his minor son. This compromise explicitly excluded any rights for respondent No.2. A similar compromise in a subsequent suit led to the withdrawal of that suit.

In its ruling, the court rejected the claim of respondent No.2 as a necessary party to the ongoing litigation. The court stated, “In the given circumstances, when the property is asserted to be self-acquired property of respondent No.1, till date, respondent No.2-Manjot Singh, as such, has no right to assert, more particularly, when the suit bearing CS No.368-2019 has since been withdrawn by him, specifically stating about the compromise having effected between the parties.”

The judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned order that had allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. This ruling underscores the importance of clarity in relationships and the weight of prior compromises in legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: November 20, 2023

Gurpreet Singh VS Balbir Singh and another       

Latest Legal News