... Caveat

....................... CAVEAT.....................

                                      

- Caveat is a caution or warning given by a person to the court that the court should not pass any   ex-parte order  before giving prior notice or without hearing the person who can be called caveator.

- When a caveat has been lodged, the person by whom the caveat has been lodged shall serve a notice of the caveat by Registered Post,

- Where a caveat has been lodged any interim application is filed in any suit or proceeding the court shall serve a notice of application on caveator.

- A caveat shall remain in force till 90 days from the date on which it was lodged..

- Every caveat shall be signed by the caveator or his advocate and shall be in the From prescribed.

- Where caveator is represented by an Advocate his vakalatnama shall accompany the Caveat.

- If anAdvocate instructed by party may file caveat without vakalatnama and give undertaking to file vakalatnama within a week in prescribed form duly signed by the party.

- A notice U/S 148A of C.P.C.(i.e.notice of interim application ) may be served on the Caveator or His Advocate personally or by post.The notice send by post at the address furnished by caveator shall be deemed to sufficient service on him.

- Where it appears to the court that object of granting Ad - Interim relief on the application would be defeated by delay, it may record reasons for such opinion and grant Ad - Interim relief on the application of applicant till further order after giving the Caveator an opportunity of being heard.

= = Relevant Provision = = =

- Section 148A and Order 40A (XL-A) i.e.Bombay High Court Amendment of C.P.C.

= Relevant Judgement = =

- Mahadev Govind Gharge v/s Special Land Acquisition Officer A.I.R.2011 S.C.2439 = 2011(5) M.L.J.(S.C.)532  = 2011(4) All.M.R.858(S.C.)

.......please peruse all previous blogs and comment, give suggestion. Anybody can circulate all my blogs without my consent...

Absence of Pleading of Limitation - Effect

- Absence of Pleading of Limitation...... Effect....!

                                  

- Limitation of suits , appeals and applications are provided in The Limitation Act 1963.

- Basically every suit instituted , appeal preferred , and application be made within prescribed period.

- If any suit , appeal , application is filed after prescribed period shall be dismissed ALTHOUGH LIMITATION has not been set up as a DEFENCE .

- Question of Limitation involves a question of very root of the court's jurisdiction of the court .

 

- Point of limitation though not raised before lower court it can raised in appeal or EVEN in Court of Last RESORT.

- Question of limitation is a mandate for Court , Forum irrespective of fact whether it is raised or not as defence in Pleading.

= = Relevant Provision = =

- Section 3 to 24 of The Limitation Act 1963 .

= Relevant Judgement = = =

- Kamlesh Babu & Ors v/s Lajpat Rai Sharma & Ors A.I.R.2008 S.C.(Supp) 1931 = 2008 SAR 542.

- Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v/s Praveen D. Desai (D) through LRS and others A.I.R.2015 S.C.2006 = 2015 SAR 789.

- State of Gujarat v/s Kothari and Associates 2016 All.SCR 857 .

.... please peruse all previous Blogs and comment give suggestions . Anybody can circulate all my blogs without my consent.

Court Fee Stamp.. Use , Refund

- Court Fee - Stamp - Use , Refund....!

                                 

- Court fee stamp is levied to as for collection of tax for government.

- Court fee stamp is paid in various civil , criminal , revenue, arbitration , tax , trust , etc judicial as well as quasi judicial proceeding.

- Basically no period of limitation is fixed or provided for using it.

- Means court fee stamp may be used at any time after purchase of it.

 

- Refund of court fee stamp in certain circumstances is provided in section 43 of Maharashtra Court Fees Act 1959.

- In case suit is Remand in appeal , Review of Judgement , Reverse or modification of firmer decision on ground of mistake Court shall refund Court fee stamp wholly by way of Refund Certificate.

- Refund certificate granted by court shall be encashed within 2 year from the date of issue of the certificate by court.

- If the suit is settled in any mode under section 89 of C.P.C. ( also in Lok Adalat ) the plaintiff shall be entitled refund of whole court fee by way of refund certificate.

- But General Stamp ( i.e. other than court fee ) shall be used within 6 month from the date of purchase.

 = = Relevant Provision = = =

-Section 15, 16 , 16A ,17 , 17 A , 43 0f Maharashtra Court Fee Act 1959.

- Section 21 of The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987.

- 89 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

- Section 52B of Maharashtra Stamp Act 1958.

- - - - - Relevant Judgement  - - 

- Vilas Rambhau Nakade v/s Civil Judge , Senior Division , Nagpur and others. 2006(3) M.L.J.146.

... .. please peruse all previous Blogs and give  suggestions Comment . Anybody can circulate all my blogs without my consent.

Exhibition of Document in Civil Suit...?

- Exhibition of Document....... !

                                       

     

- Exhibition of document is for is for purpose of the identification .

- Exhibition of document is an administrative work of the court.

- Mere exhibition of document would not amount to proof of contents of document.

- Mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof.

- Mere exhibition of document is not sufficient to read it in evidence unless document is admissible in evidence.

- Document exhibited  be endorsed following particulars the number and title of the suit , the name of the person producing the document , the date on which it was produced , a statement of its having been so admitted and the endorsement shall or initialled by the judge.

- Non exhibiting a document does not mean that the document is not proved.

= = Relevant Provision = = =

- Order 13 of C.P.C.1908.

- Chapter 5 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872.

- Para 524 of Civil Manual.

- - Relevant Judgement - - - 

- Bana Kathari Patil v/s Rohidas Arjun Madhavi 2004(2) All.M.R.290 = 2004(2) M.L.J.752.

- Saifuddin Vazir v/s Hajabai Patel A.I.R. 2003 Bombay 36.

- Sunil T. Bhardkar v/s Santosh G. Rane 2006(3)M.L.J.811.

- Rekha Bahujan v/s Shubhada bai  Keshavrao Bunage 2012 (3) M.L.J.249.

- Hemendra R. Ghia v/s Subodh Mody 2008(6) M.L.J.886.

- Abdul Rahun Majid v/s Sheikh Rashid 2010(1) M.L.J.343.

- L.I.C. of India & Anr v/s Ram Pal Singh Bisen 2010 SAR 293.

.. please read all previous Blogs and comment give suggestions . Anybody may circulate all blogs without my consent......

Secondary Evidence...... !

- Secondary Evidence ....... Requirements

                                 

- Basically secondary evidence relating to documents may be given subject to fulfilment of  following condition required by Evidence Act with the permission of court.

- If the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved.

 - If original document is not produced after the notice mentioned in Section 66 of Evidence Act served.

- When the existence , condition or contents of the original have been provided to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest.

- When original has been destroyed or lost or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot , for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect , produce it in reasonable time.

- When original is of such nature as not to be easily movable.

- When original is a public document.

- When original is document of which a certified copy is permitted by Evidence Act or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence.

- When original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in court .

= = Relevant Provision = = = 

- Section 65/66/74 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872.

_ _ _ _  Relevant Judgement _ _ _ 

-Jagmail Sing & Anr v/s Karamjit Singh & Ors 2021 SAR 86.

- Kashibai Jadhav v/s Yamunabai Jadhav 2017(7) All.M.R.525.

- Rakes Mahindra v/s Anita Beti 2016 All SCR 1.

- H.Siddiqui v/s A.Ramalingam A.I.R.2011 S.C.1492 = 2011(4)M.L.J.(S.C.) 88.

- U.Sree v/s U.Srinivas A.I.R.2013 S.C.2013= 2013 SAR 175.

... Please peruse my previous Blogs and comment give suggestions . Anybody may circulate my all Blogs without my consent.