SHRIKRISHNA RAMCHANDRA DHARAP AND ORS v. SWAROOP SURENDRANATH CHOPRA DECD THR LHRS AND ORS
Discusses principles of statutory interpretation, abuse of process, and court's discretionary powers in writ jurisdiction.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:31505
Decision Date: 02-07-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, 1949; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; General Principles of Law
- Constitution of India, 1949: Article 227 is mentioned as the basis for the Writ Petition, challenging an order passed by the District Judge. The court notes that this is not a fit case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227, considering the nature of the writ jurisdiction and the stage at which the issue is being raised (appellate proceedings, nearly three decades after the original suit was adjudicated).
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VI, Rule 16 of the CPC is central to the petition, as the petitioners challenged the rejection of their application under this rule. The application sought to strike out pleadings in the original plaint of a civil suit. The court discusses the application of Order VI, Rule 16, noting that the District Judge rightly considered whether there was an abuse of the court's process. The court ultimately rejects the attempt to strike off a component of the pleadings at the appellate stage, finding no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order.
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act is discussed in relation to the requirement of claiming possession in a suit for specific performance. The court notes the contention that under Section 22(1)(a), a person seeking specific performance must ask the Court to grant possession, and under Section 22(2), no relief may be granted unless specifically claimed. The proviso to Section 22(2) allows the court to amend the plaint to include such a claim. The court refrains from a firm finding on the interpretation of Section 22, read with Section 55(1)(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, leaving it for the final hearing of the Appeal. The court states that the interpretation of Section 22 has no place in considering the application under Order VI, Rule 16 of the CPC.
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 55(1)(f) of the Transfer of Property Act is mentioned in conjunction with Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act. The court refers to the argument that Section 55(1)(f) implicitly includes a right to possession. However, the court declines to delve into this interpretation at this stage, deferring it to the final hearing of the appeal.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment touches upon the principle of abuse of process of court. The petitioners argued that the insertion of the words "and hand over possession" in the original plaint was an abuse of process. The court, however, finds this contention unbelievable, considering the long delay in raising the issue and the existence of a certified copy of the plaint with the insertion dating back to 1990. The concept of "prima facie" evidence is also discussed, in the context of whether the Impugned Order calls for interference.
🔒 For Members Only