Bharat Chugh

Property Law April 3, 2012

Supreme Court on the Basics

of Law of Partition

Comment : In this case the court was faced with a query “whether there is a
period of limitation for filing an application for passing of final decree (metes
and bounds partition) after prelininary decree declaring their shares is passed
? Court held  N O – as suit is still on hold and is not disposed off, there is no
period of limitation, court said ideally it should be a seamless process – without
any time gaps – so that litigant gets relief and not just a PAPER !Supreme Court
of India

Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan … vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors. on 21 August,
2009
Author: R V Raveendran
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.17932 OF 2009

Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan

Prasad Bubna … Petitioner Vs.

Sita Saran Bubna & Ors. … Respondents ORDER

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

The first respondent and his mother filed a suit for partition against petitioner
and two others in the year 1960 in the court of the First Additional Judge,
Muzaffarnagar, for partition and separate possession of their one-third share in
the plaint schedule properties and for rendition of accounts. The suit was in
respect of three non-agricultural plots and some movables. After contest the
suit was decreed on 25.2.1964 directing a preliminary decree for partition be
drawn in regard to the one-third share of the plaintiffs in the said plots and a
final decree be drawn up through appointment of a Commissioner for actual
division of the plots by metes and bounds.

2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner (and others) filed an appeal before the Patna
High Court which was dismissed on 29.3.1974. The first respondent filed an
application on 1.5.1987 for drawing up a final decree. The petitioner filed an
application on 15.4.1991 to drop the final decree proceedings as it was barred by
limitation. The said application was dismissed by the trial court holding that
once the rights/shares of the plaintiff had been finally determined by a
preliminary decree, there is no limitation for an application for affecting the
actual partition/division in accordance with the preliminary decree, as it
should be considered to be an application made in a pending suit. The said
order was challenged by the petitioner in a revision petition which was
dismissed by the High Court order dated 15.1.2009. The petitioner has filed this
special leave petition seeking leave to appeal against the said decision of the
High Court.

3. The appellant contends that when a preliminary decree is passed in a

partition suit, a right enures to the plaintiff to apply for a final decree for
division of the suit property by metes and bounds; that whenever an application
is made to enforce a right or seeking any relief, such application is governed by
the law of limitation; that an application for  3

drawing up a final decree would be governed by the residuary Article 137 of

Limitation Act, 1963 (`Act’ for short) which provides a period of limitation of
three years; that as such right to apply accrues on the date of the preliminary
decree, any application filed beyond three years from the date of preliminary
decree (that is 12.3.1964) or at all events beyond three years from the date when
the High Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal (that is 29.3.1974) would be
barred by limitation. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on the decision of
this Court in Sital Parshad v. Kishori Lal [AIR 1967 SC 1236], the decision of the
Privy Council in Saiyid Jowad Hussain v. Gendan Singh [AIR 1926 PC 93] and a
decision of the Patna High Court in Thakur Pandey v. Bundi Ojha [AIR 1981
Patna 27] in support of his contention.

The issue:

4. `Partition’ is a re-distribution or adjustment of pre-existing rights, among co-

owners/coparceners, resulting in a division of lands or other properties jointly
held by them, into different lots or portions and delivery thereof to the
respective allottees. The effect of such division is that the joint ownership is
terminated and the respective shares vest in them in severalty. A partition of a
property can be only among those having a  4

share or interest in it. A person who does not have a share in such property
cannot obviously be a party to a partition. `Separation of share’ is a species of
‘partition’. When all co-owners get separated, it is a partition. Separation of
share/s refers to a division where only one or only a few among several co-
owners/coparceners get separated, and others continue to be joint or continue
to hold the remaining property jointly without division by metes and bounds.
For example, where four brothers owning a property divide it among themselves
by metes and bounds, it is a partition. But if only one brother wants to get his
share separated and other three brothers continue to remain joint, there is only
a separation of the share of one brother. In a suit for partition or separation of a
share, the prayer is not only for declaration of plaintiff’s share in the suit
properties, but also division of his share by metes and bounds. This involves
three issues: (i) whether the person seeking division has a share or interest in
the suit property/properties; (ii) whether he is entitled to the relief of division
and separate possession; and (iii) how and in what manner, the
property/properties should be divided by metes and bounds?

5. In a suit is for partition or separation of a share, the court at the first stage
decides whether the plaintiff has a share in the suit property and  5

whether he is entitled to division and separate possession. The decision on

these two issues is exercise of a judicial function and results in first stage
decision termed as `decree’ under Order 20 Rule 18(1) and termed as
`preliminary decree’ under Order 20 Rule 18(2) of the Code. The consequential
division by metes and bounds, considered to be a ministerial or administrative
act requiring the physical inspection, measurements, calculations and
considering various permutations/ combinations/alternatives of division is
referred to the Collector under Rule 18(1) and is the subject matter of the final
decree under Rule 18(2). The question is whether the provisions of Limitation
Act are inapplicable to an application for drawing up a final decree.

6. Rule 18 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`Code’ for short) deals
with decrees in suits for partition or separate possession of a share therein
which is extracted below:

"18. Decree in suit for partition of property or separate possession of a

share therein.– Where the Court passes a decree for the partition of property or
for the separate possession of a share therein, then, —

(1) if and in so far as the decree relates to an estate assessed to the payment of
revenue to the Government, the decree shall declare the rights of the several
parties interested in the property, but shall direct such partition or separation
to be made by the Collector, or any gazetted subordinate of the Collector
deputed by him in this  6

behalf, in accordance with such declaration and with the provisions of section
54;

(2) if and in so far as such decree relates to any other immovable property or to
movable property, the Court may, if the partition or separation cannot be
conveniently made without further inquiry, pass a preliminary decree declaring
the rights of the several parties, interested in the property and giving such
further directions as may be required."

The terms ‘preliminary decree’ and ‘final decree’ used in the said rule are
defined in Explanation to section 2(2) of the Code and reads thus : "A
decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit
can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely
disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final."

Section 54 of the Code dealing with partition of estate or separation of share,

relevant for purposes of Rule 18(1) reads thus: "Where the decree is for the
partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue of the
government, or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate, the
partition of the estate or the separation of the share shall be made by the
Collector or any gazetted sub-ordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this
behalf, in accordance with the law (if any) for the time being in force relating to
the partition, or the separate possession of shares, of such estates."

Rule 13 of Order 26 of the Code dealing with Commissions to make partition of

immovable property, relevant for purposes of Rule 18(2) reads thus :

"Where a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, the Court may,
in any case not provided for by section 54, issue a commission to such person as
it thinks fit to make the partition or separation according to the rights as
declared in such decree."

7. We may now turn to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 3 of
the Act provides that subject to sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal
preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed.
The term ‘period of limitation’ is defined as the period of limitation prescribed
for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule to the Act (vide clause (j) of
section 2 of the Act). The term "prescribed period" is defined as the
period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
The Third Division of the Schedule to the said Act prescribes the periods of
limitation for Applications. The Schedule does not contain any Article
prescribing the limitation for an application for drawing up of a final decree.
Article 136 prescribes the limitation for execution of any decree or order of civil
court as 12 years when the decree or order becomes enforceable. Article 137
provides that for any other application for which no period of limitation is
provided elsewhere in that division, the period of limitation is three years
which would begin to run from the time when the right to apply accrues. It is
thus clear that every application which seeks to  8

enforce a right or seeks a remedy or relief on the basis of any cause of action in
a civil court, unless otherwise provided, will be subject to the law of limitation.
But where an application does not invoke the jurisdiction of the court to grant
any fresh relief based on a new cause of action, but merely reminds or requests
the court to do its duty by completing the remaining part of the pending suit,
there is no question of any limitation. Such an application in a suit which is
already pending, which contains no fresh or new prayer for relief is not one to
which Limitation Act, 1963 would apply. These principles are evident from the
provisions of the Code and the Limitation Act and also settled by a series of
judgments of different High Court over the decades (See : for example, Lalta
Prasad vs. Brahma Din [AIR 1929 Oudh 456], Ramabai Govind v. Anant Daji
[AIR 1945 Bom. 338], Abdul Kareem Sab vs. Gowlivada S. Silar Saheb [AIR 1957
AP 40], A. Manjundappa v. Sonnappa & Ors. [AIR 1965 Kar. 73], Sudarsan
Panda & Ors. v. Laxmidhar Panda & Ors. [AIR 1983 Orissa 121], Laxmi
v. A.Sankappa Alwa [AIR 1989 Ker. 289]. We may also draw support from the
judgments of this Court in Phoolchand vs. Gopal Lal[AIR 1967 SC
1470], Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors. [2007 (2) SCC
355] and Bikoba Deora Gaikwad v. Hirabai Marutirao Ghorgare [2008 (8) SCC
198].  9
8. Once a court passes a preliminary decree, it is the duty of the court to ensure
that the matter is referred to the Collector or a Commissioner for division
unless the parties themselves agree as to the manner of division. This duty in
the normal course has to be performed by the court itself as a continuation of
the preliminary decree. Sometimes either on account of the pendency of an
appeal or other circumstances, the court passes the decree under Rule 18(1) or a
preliminary decree under Rule 18(2) and the matter goes into storage to be
revived only when an application is made by any of the parties, drawing its
attention to the pending issue and the need for referring the matter either to
the Collector or a Commissioner for actual division of the property. Be that as it
may.

9. The following principles emerge from the above discussion regarding

partition suits :

9.1) In regard to estates assessed to payment of revenue to the government

(agricultural land), the court is required to pass only one decree declaring the
rights of several parties interested in the suit property with a direction to the
Collector (or his subordinate) to effect actual partition or separation in
accordance with the declaration made by the  10

court in regard to the shares of various parties and deliver the respective
portions to them, in accordance with section 54 of Code. Such entrustment to
the Collector under law was for two reasons. First is that Revenue Authorities
are more conversant with matters relating to agricultural lands. Second is to
safeguard the interests of government in regard to revenue. (The second reason,
which was very important in the 19th century and early 20th century when the
Code was made, has now virtually lost its relevance, as revenue from
agricultural lands is negligible). Where the Collector acts in terms of the decree,
the matter does not come back to the court at all. The court will not interfere
with the partitions by the Collector, except to the extent of any complaint of a
third party affected thereby.

9.2) In regard to immovable properties (other than agricultural lands paying

land revenue), that is buildings, plots etc. or movable properties: (i) where the
court can conveniently and without further enquiry make the division without
the assistance of any Commissioner, or where parties agree upon the manner of
division, the court will pass a single decree comprising the preliminary decree
declaring the rights of several parties and also a final decree dividing the suit
properties by metes and bounds.

(ii) where the division by metes and bounds cannot be made without further
inquiry, the court will pass a preliminary  11

decree declaring the rights of the parties interested in the property and give
further directions as may be required to effect the division. In such cases,
normally a Commissioner is appointed (usually an Engineer, Draughtsman,
Architect, or Lawyer) to physically examine the property to be divided and
suggest the manner of division. The court then hears the parties on the report,
and passes a final decree for division by metes and bounds.

The function of making a partition or separation according to the rights

declared by the preliminary decree, (in regard to non-agricultural immovable
properties and movables) is entrusted to a Commissioner, as it involves
inspection of the property and examination of various alternatives with
reference to practical utility and site conditions. When the Commissioner gives
his report as to the manner of division, the proposals contained in the report
are considered by the court; and after hearing objections to the report, if any,
the court passes a final decree whereby the relief sought in the suit is granted by
separating the property by metes and bounds. It is also possible that if the
property is incapable of proper division, the court may direct sale thereof and
distribution of the proceeds as per the shares declared.

9.3) As the declaration of rights or shares is only the first stage in a suit for
partition, a preliminary decree does not have the effect of disposing of  12

the suit. The suit continues to be pending until partition, that is division by
metes and bounds, takes place by passing a final decree. An application
requesting the court to take necessary steps to draw up a final decree effecting a
division in terms of the preliminary decree, is neither an application for
execution (falling under Article 136 of the Limitation Act) nor an application
seeking a fresh relief (falling under Article 137 of Limitation Act). It is only a
reminder to the court to do its duty to appoint a Commissioner, get a report,
and draw a final decree in the pending suit so that the suit is taken to its logical
conclusion.

10. The three decisions relied on by the petitioner (referred to in para 3 above)
are not relevant for deciding the issue arising in this case. They all relate to suits
for mortgage and not partition. There is a fundamental difference between
mortgage suits and partition suits. In a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit
(whether a decree for foreclosure under Rule 2 or a decree for sale under Rule 4
of Order 34 of the Code), the amount due is determined and declared and the
time within which the amount has to be paid is also fixed and the consequence
of non payment within the time stipulated is also specified. A preliminary
decree in a mortgage suit decides all the issues and what is left out is only the
action to be taken in  13

the event of non payment of the amount. When the amount is not paid the
plaintiff gets a right to seek a final decree for foreclosure or for sale. On the
other hand, in a partition suit the preliminary decrees only decide a part of the
suit and therefore an application for passing a final decree is only an
application in a pending suit, seeking further progress. In partition suits, there
can be a preliminary decree followed by a final decree, or there can be a decree
which is a combination of preliminary decree and final decree or there can be
merely a single decree with certain further steps to be taken by the court. In fact
several applications for final decree are permissible in a partition suit. A decree
in a partition suit enures to the benefit of all the co-owners and therefore, it is
sometimes said that there is really no judgment-debtor in a partition decree. A
preliminary decree for partition only identifies the properties to be subjected to
partition, defines and declares the shares/rights of the parties. That part of the
prayer relating to actual division by metes and bounds and allotment is left for
being completed under the final decree proceedings. Thus the application for
final decree as and when made is considered to be an application in a pending
suit for granting the relief of division by metes and bounds. Therefore, the
concept of final decree in a partition suit is different from the concept of final
decree in a mortgage  14

suit. Consequently an application for a final decree in a mortgage suit is

different from an application for final decree in partition suits. A suggestion for
debate and legislative action

11. The century old civil procedure contemplates judgments, decrees,

preliminary decrees and final decrees and execution of decrees. They provide
for a `pause’ between a decree and execution. A ‘pause’ has also developed by
practice between a preliminary decree and a final decree. The `pause’ is to
enable the defendant to voluntarily comply with the decree or declaration
contained in the preliminary decree. The ground reality is that defendants
normally do not comply with decrees without the pursuance of an execution. In
very few cases, the defendants in a partition suit, voluntarily divide the property
on the passing of a preliminary decree. In very few cases, defendants in money
suits, pay the decretal amount as per the decrees. Consequently, it is necessary
to go to the second stage that is levy of execution, or applications for final
decree followed by levy of execution in almost all cases.

12. A litigant coming to court seeking relief is not interested in receiving a paper
decree, when he succeeds in establishing his case. What he wants is relief. If it is
a suit for money, he wants the money. If it is a  15

suit for property, he wants the property. He naturally wonders why when he files
a suit for recovery of money, he should first engage a lawyer and obtain a decree
and then again engage a lawyer and execute the decree. Similarly, when he files
a suit for partition, he wonders why he has to first secure a preliminary decree,
then file an application and obtain a final decree and then file an execution to
get the actual relief. The common-sensical query is: why not a continuous
process? The litigant is perplexed as to why when a money decree is passed, the
court does not fix the date for payment and if it is not paid, proceed with the
execution; when a preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit, why the court
does not forthwith fix a date for appointment of a Commissioner for division
and make a final decree and deliver actual possession of his separated share.
Why is it necessary for him to remind the court and approach the court at
different stages?

13. Because of the artificial division of suits into preliminary decree

proceedings, final decree proceedings and execution proceedings, many Trial
judges tend to believe that adjudication of the right being the judicial function,
they should concentrate on that part. Consequently, adequate importance is not
given to the final decree proceedings and  16

execution proceedings which are considered to be ministerial functions. The

focus is on disposing of cases, rather than ensuring that the litigant gets the
relief. But the focus should not only be on early disposal of cases, but also on
early and easy securement of relief for which the party approaches the court.
Even among lawyers, importance is given only to securing of a decree, not
securing of relief. Many lawyers handle suits only till preliminary decree is
made, then hand it over to their juniors to conduct the final decree proceedings
and then give it to their clerks for conducting the execution proceedings. Many
a time, a party exhausts his finances and energy by the time he secures the
preliminary decree and has neither the capacity nor the energy to pursue the
matter to get the final relief. As a consequence, we have found cases where a suit
is decreed or a preliminary decree is granted within a year or two, the final
decree proceeding and execution takes decades for completion. This is an area
which contributes to considerable delay and consequential loss of credibility of
the civil justice system. Courts and Lawyers should give as much importance to
final decree proceedings and executions, as they give to the main suits.

17
14. In the present system, when preliminary decree for partition is passed, there
is no guarantee that the plaintiff will see the fruits of the decree. The proverbial
observation by the Privy Council is that the difficulties of a litigant begin when
he obtains a decree. It is necessary to remember that success in a suit means
nothing to a party unless he gets the relief. Therefore to be really meaningful
and efficient, the scheme of the Code should enable a party not only to get a
decree quickly, but also to get the relief quickly. This requires a conceptual
change regarding civil litigation, so that the emphasis is not only on disposal of
suits, but also on securing relief to the litigant. We hope that the Law
Commission and Parliament will bestow their attention on this issue and make
appropriate recommendations/amendments so that the suit will be a
continuous process from the stage of its initiation to the stage of securing actual
relief. The present system involving a proceeding for declaration of the right, a
separate proceeding for quantification or ascertainment of relief, and another
separate proceeding for enforcement of the decree to secure the relief, is
outmoded and unsuited for present requirements. If there is a practice of
assigning separate numbers for final decree proceedings that should be avoided.
Issuing fresh notices to the defendants at each stage should also be avoided. The
Code of Civil Procedure should provide for a  18

continuous and seamless process from the stage of filing of suit to the stage of
getting relief. In money suits and other suits requiring a single decree, the
process of suit should be a continuous process consisting of the first stage
relating to determination of liability and then the second stage of execution and
recovery, without any pause or stop or need for the plaintiff to initiate a
separate proceedings for execution. In suits for partition and other suits
involving declaration of the right and ascertainment/quantification of the
relief, the process of the suit should be continuous, consisting of the first stage
of determination and declaration of the right, second stage of
ascertainment/division/quantification, and the third stage of execution to give
actual relief.

Conclusion

15. In so far final decree proceedings are concerned, we see no reason for even
legislative intervention. As the provisions of the Code stand at present,
initiation of final decree proceedings does not depend upon an application for
final decree for initiation (unless the local amendments require the same). As
noticed above, the Code does not contemplate filing an application for final
decree. Therefore, when a preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit, the
proceedings should be continued by fixing  19

dates for further proceedings till a final decree is passed. It is the duty and
function of the court. Performance of such function does not require a
reminder or nudge from the litigant. The mindset should be to expedite the
process of dispute resolution.

16. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the application filed by the
plaintiff in this case for drawing up of a final decree, was rightly held to be not
subject to any period of limitation. We therefore dismiss this special leave
petition as having no merit, with a request to expedite the final decree
proceedings.
 ………………………..J.

(R. V. Raveendran)

……………………….J.

(B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi;

August 21, 2009.

20

← PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST →

Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here…

Comments (0)

Search

Search

Related posts
Amendment of Plaint to prevent partial Is criminal judgment binding on a civil 25B DRC is a complete code in itself
partition – application by defendant ? case ? March 30, 2012
April 3, 2012 April 5, 2012

Other posts
 Defendant’s Claim for Injunction in Interaction with po
A Judgment that I wrote in a case of Suit filed by Plaintiff (A Guest Post judicial officers from
false implication by the Police by Harshit Sharma) Sikkim on “Commo

Website Powered by WordPress.com. Instagram Twitter

Topics/Categories
bail
Bankruptcy
Benami Law
Bharat's Notes
book recommendation
Case comment
Civil Law
Constitutional Law
Consumer Law
contract law
conversation/podcast
Corporate Law
Corporate Law Concepts
COVID
Criminal Justice System
criminal law
Cyber Law
Data Protection
Diaries of a Young Lawyer
Diary of a Young Judge
Evidence Law
Extradition Law
Family Law
GST
Guest post
Hindu Succession Law
IBC
Influencer Liability
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
International Commercial Arbitration
Interpretation
interviews
Islamic Law
Judgeship
Judgment Writing
Law Reform
 law school
law students
legal writing
Mentorship
Mercantile Law
Model Answers
Money laundering
Op-Ed
Personal
Podcast
Poetry
Probono
Procedural Law
Property Law
Service Law
Short Fiction
Short story
Slice of Life
social justice
social media law
Tax Law
Tech law
Uncategorized
White Collar Crime

Archives
January 2023 (1)
December 2022 (1)
November 2022 (2)
August 2022 (3)
July 2022 (6)
June 2022 (19)
March 2022 (1)
January 2022 (1)
November 2021 (2)
October 2021 (2)
August 2021 (1)
June 2021 (2)
May 2021 (2)
March 2021 (4)
February 2021 (2)
January 2021 (7)
December 2020 (9)
November 2020 (5)
September 2020 (2)
August 2020 (4)
July 2020 (8)
June 2020 (12)
May 2020 (7)
April 2020 (1)
February 2020 (3)
January 2019 (1)
December 2018 (1)
 November 2018 (2)
September 2018 (1)
March 2018 (1)
December 2017 (1)
August 2017 (3)
May 2017 (4)
April 2017 (1)
February 2017 (1)
February 2013 (8)
January 2013 (3)
December 2012 (3)
November 2012 (8)
October 2012 (3)
August 2012 (8)
July 2012 (4)
June 2012 (18)
May 2012 (21)
April 2012 (46)
March 2012 (75)
December 2011 (3)

Previous Posts
A Judgment that I wrote in a case of false implication by the Police
by Bharat Chugh
January 1, 2023

Many of you have reached out to me, over the last few months and years, for copies of judgments and orders that I wrote – during
my tenure as a Trial Court Judge. Many of these are available on IndianKanoon, but not all. Here’s one that was sent to me recently
by someone, which wasn’t […]

Defendant’s Claim for Injunction in Suit filed by Plaintiff (A Guest Post by Harshit Sharma)
by Bharat Chugh
December 31, 2022
This is a guest post by the very bright young judge Harshit Sharma (https://www.linkedin.com/in/harshit-sharma-hs30/) on a very
interesting topic of civil law. The present article focuses on the regularly encountered situation in trial courts. It is often seen that
in a suit by plaintiff where he claims injunction in the connected miscellaneous file through an […]

Interaction with police officers and judicial officers from the State of Sikkim on “Common defects in Criminal Investigations’ and
the ways and means in which criminal investigations can be made better.
by Bharat Chugh
November 11, 2022

15 things that you must do when you get a new case file/brief (Young Lawyer Diaries)
by Bharat Chugh
November 10, 2022

*Part of the ‘Letters to a Young Lawyer’ series. This series is inspired by my conversations with my brilliant younger colleagues at
the Chambers. This is how it goes: Congratulations, you’ve got a brief! 1. Look at the brief admiringly! (But not for long lest people
start suspecting your sanity!). Well, Congratulations – this brief […]

Ryan School Murder Case: How to assess Bholu’s culpability? (Guest post by Sh.Rajesh Mohan, IPS)
by Bharat Chugh
August 12, 2022

This is a guest post by Sh. Rajesh Mohan, IPS, Haryana Cadre (follow him on twitter here!) On 8th September 2017, a class II
student was found murdered with his throat slit inside a washroom of the Ryan International School at Bhondsi, Gurugram in
Haryana. After coming into the media limelight the case was transferred […]
Outsourcing ‘Feeling’ or “The Letter Writer” (Poetry Night)
by Bharat Chugh
August 11, 2022

Do you mind outsourcing to me- What you always wanted to say,  But couldn’t find a way.  Listen, I can write that letter for you,
Make those passions renew.    I’m really good at it,  With that decent-sized wit; And not just it… I’m also good at saying things I don’t
mean, I’m sure you […]

PMLA – A (P)oem On the (M)oney (L)aundering (A)ct.

by Bharat Chugh
August 4, 2022

“It’s very genesis is illegal; it can’t be a Money Bill!  This vitiates everything; a lacunae that you can’t fill!”  This issue – we decide not
to decide,  Let’s look at the other issues, for a moment, keeping this aside.  The law is amazing; it’s beautiful; truly one of its kind, 
The legislature was competent, […]

Pre-Trials Powers of a Civil Court to expedite disposal of cases(Guest Post)

by Bharat Chugh
July 31, 2022

Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the ultimate quest. A guest post by Ambanshu Sahni, Advocate practising at the
Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court. First published at https://lawsofindiaexplained.blogspot.com Indian
Judicial system is facing a humongous problem of backlog of cases. The pendency of cases results in delays […]

10 things you must know about the new influencer endorsement guidelines issued by the CCPA
by Bharat Chugh
July 27, 2022
With great (social media) influence comes great responsibility. This is the essence of the new CCPA guidelines. Here: This is not a
new development. ASCI had earlier come up with similar guidelines for influencers/celeb endorsers. However, the same were
observed more in their breach than in compliance. This was because ASCI guidelines are only advisory/persuasive […]

Law in 100 Words| Part 16 | Quashing of Criminal Proceedings on the basis of Settlement | Guest post by Sholab Arora
by Bharat Chugh
July 23, 2022
The power of a court to compound an offence u/s 320 CrPC is different from the power of the High Court to quash a criminal
proceeding u/s 482 CrPC.  The High Court can quash a criminal proceeding even if it involves a non-compoundable offence,
however, subject to the two disjunctive preconditions stipulated in Section 482: first, […]

Law in 100 Words | Part 15 | Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act; Speedy recovery of possession (Guest Post)
by Bharat Chugh
July 3, 2022
Section 6 of Specific Relief act, 1963 (hereinafter referred as SRA), obligates a court to provide summary relief to a person who is
dispossessed without his consent of immovable property & without following the due process of law. The object of Section 6 of
SRA is to provide immediate and speedy relief to a person who has been unjustly and […]

Law in 100 Words | Part 14 | Calculating 60/90 days period for the purpose of Default/Compulsory Bail (S.167 CrPC)
by Bharat Chugh
July 2, 2022
Let’s take the facts of Ravi Prakash Singh v state of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 340 for the purpose of illustrating. Here are the brief facts:
Accused first surrendered before the Court on 05.07.2013 and 1st remand order passed is passed on the same day.  Bail application
filed by the accused on 03.10.2013 on the ground that he is entitled to […]

A few words on Re-examination of Witnesses | The Art of putting Humpty Dumpty back together again…
by Bharat Chugh
July 1, 2022
The purpose of re-examination is clear from the bare language of Section 138 of the Evidence Act. It reads: 138: Order of
Examination – Witnesses shall be first examined-in chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party
calling him so desires) re-examined.  .. .. Direction of re-examination.—The re-examination shall be directed […]

Some thoughts on the distinction between a mere breach of contract and offence of cheating.
by Bharat Chugh
June 30, 2022
The clear distinction between these two concepts is often ignored. Often deliberately – with a view to turn a patently civil dispute
into a criminal case (to exert pressure, ease recovery, etc.). This is – no doubt – a very unfortunate tendency. (Over 70% of all cases
pending at the trial court level are criminal […]
A few words on The Art (and Science!) of Cross Examination and Trial Warfare.
by Bharat Chugh
June 28, 2022
A lot of you have written to me – over the years – on advice relating to cross examination. Well, advice isn’t worth much when it
comes to something as practical and experiential as cross examination. (One can’t learn swimming in a library!). Having said that, a
few broad principles that I’ve found particularly helpful […]

Law in 100 Words | Part 13 | Judgment Writing #101 | How to write facts in a judgment (for aspiring trial court judges)
by Bharat Chugh
June 27, 2022
■Facts are key. A trial court is essentially a court of fact. ■At the High Court, all that a lawyer needs to do in order to get the leave to
appeal is to demonstrate factual aspects not dealt-with in order get the leave granted in his/her favour.  ■Good practice to read and
internalize the whole file […]

Law in 100 Words | Part 12 | Joinder of Charges/Accused – A Case Study.

by Bharat Chugh
June 26, 2022
Facts: •CBI receives information that the CMD of a PSU is allegedly accepting bribes from bidders/suppliers of the PSU.  •The CBI
lays down a trap. The wife of the CMD is also caught allegedly depositing gold bars in a bank locker. •Two chargesheets are filed.
One against all the people involved in the alleged offence including the […]

Law in 100 Words | Part 11 | Some Bail Law related reforms.

by Bharat Chugh
June 25, 2022
Scope of bail hearing should be limited.  It should be clarified that a Bail hearing is not a mini trial, and a statutory amendment
should clarify so. Especially, given the conflicting judicial decisions on this point. Reconsideration of higher threshold for bail in
cases under special criminal laws.  Time-bound disposal of bail applications. Make it a […]

Law in 100 Words | Part 10 | Section 313 of the CrPC | Guest Post by Adv. Sholab Arora
by Bharat Chugh
June 23, 2022
Section 313 (1) (b) of CrPC obligates a trial court, after the prosecution evidence is complete, to question the accused “generally on
the case…for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him”.
The product of this exercise is generally referred to as ‘Section 313 Statement’, the […]

My favourite books and authors. Top 45 non-law reads.

by Bharat Chugh
June 23, 2022
Many of you have reached out to me – over the years – seeking book recommendations, or asking me – who my favourite authors
are. To be honest, I don’t think I’ve simply read enough in life to be equipped to suggest/recommend but, for what its worth, here are
a few that I absolutely love. […]

Type your email… Subscribe

Join 22,501 other followers