Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case, the evidence has a direct & important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that the evidence must be permitted to be taken on record, then such an application may be allowed.”
The amendments were imperative for the proper and effective adjudication of the dispute; refusal to allow the amendment application would have caused injustice or resulted in multiple litigations; and the amendments did not constitutionally or fundamentally change the nature of the case.
The Court decided under the aegis of Or.14, R.2 of the CPC that where a question of law is dependent on the determination of a question of fact, then such question of fact cannot be decided as a preliminary issue by the Trial Court.
“The easementary right is essentially a right claimed by the owner of land upon another land owned by someone else so that he may enjoy his property in the most beneficial manner.”
“District Registrar is duty bound to draw a distinction between the summary proceeding and the trial nature proceedings with reference to the Registration Act and the Code of Civil Procedure”
“No tribunal, far less a civil court, in exercise of judicial power ought to play ducks and drakes with the rights of the parties.”
by Shrikrishna Dagliya† and Vidhi Dagliya††
Supreme Court commented that “The situation is indeed disquieting, viewed from the perspective of the decree holders, but the law, as it stands, has to be given effect whether the court likes the result or not.”
In a suit instituted by the Hindu worshippers to secure their right to darshan and pooja of deities Virajman within the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque Complex, the Allahabad High Court said that merely seeking right to worship Hindu deities does not change the Mosque’s character into a Temple.
by Ila Kapoor† and Mrinali Komandur††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 42
Placing its reliance on Bhurey Khan v Yaseen Khan 1995 Supp (3) SCC 331, the Bench stated that the suit will not abate for the reason of non-substitution of all legal representatives of the deceased if the suit was substantially represented.
by Abhijnan Jha* and Urvashi Misra**