MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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