Suresh Babu Rai
21 December 2013 at 16:20
Respected members!
Sorry for not tendering the result of my previous queries! I was out station for all these days and thanks for all the members of our club and more particularly to the members who answered my quires…
Sir!
As I have stated, I have filed a DVC case against a husband under Sec.12 of DV Act, who alleged to be taken the custody of a minor (5 Yrs) from my client. I have also filed a separate petition under Sec.97 for search warrant against the above minor within the premises of husband.
At the hearing judge asked me to withdraw the petition filed under Sec.97 of Cr.P.C against the husband and requested me to file a petition under Sec. 21 of DV Act requesting the court to handover the custody of the minor to the natural from her father and adjourned the matter for next of third day and promised me that, if my allegation of taking the baby by the husband is to be true, she is going to handover the custody of the baby through court without giving any adjournment to the husband. I have withdrawn the petition filed under Sec. 97 of Cr.P.C and filed a petition under Sec. 21 of DV Act and got served the notices on the husband within time stipulated.
The husband had taken the baby to the court and Judge Madam without giving any adjournment has handed over the custody of the minor to my client. The same was published in the local news papers as a news item for the justice done by the court towards a pitiable mother.
Secondly, I have cross examined the DW-1 confronting his own deposition with other court in similar matter and got it marked to the extent of relevant portion of that relevant portion.
Respected members!
This is my third query arose out of confrontation of witness:
1. Whether it is correct to say that you have executed an agreement on the date of registration in favour of your vendor.
(In fact the suit land was purchased for a sale consideration is Rs. 2, 62,500/-, but the DW-1, whom my cross-examination and confrontation done has executed an agreement to his vendor that, though the sale consideration is Rs.2, 62,000/- he has paid only an amount of Rs.90, 000/- and agreeing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1, 72,500/- after a month date of registration)
It is true that I have executed Ex.A8 (agreement) in favour of my vendor that, I have paid only an amount of Rs.90, 000/- at the time of registration (marked as Ex.A3) and agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1, 72,500/- after a month of registration.
Did you paid the remaining amount after a month of registration to your vendor?
Yes, I have paid total amount after a month.
Whether any receipt reduced in to writing to the effect, and whether you filed any document to show that you paid the balance sale consideration to your vendor after a month?
No, no any document or recipe is reduced in to writing to that effect as such I did not filed the same before the court.
After my suggestion:
Whether it is correct to say that you have mentioned in your sale deed (Ex. A3) that the sale consideration is Rs.1, 05,000/- and you have paid stamp duty on Rs.1, 05,000/-.
It is true that in spite of Rs. 1, 62,500/-, I have mentioned an amount of Rs1, 05,000/- on my sale deed.
It is not true to suggest that I have not paid any sale consideration to my vendor, and my registered sale deed with deficit stamp duty in not valid and in order to grab the earnest money paid by the plaintiff, I in collusion with my vendor has created the Ex.A3.
Whether that above sale, which is defined under Transfer of Property Act is valid and I about to advance my arguments to that effect, please guide me!
Thank you one and all….
shashidhar
21 December 2013 at 13:52
presently my sisters more than 60yrs filed a suit of that they want share .
Ashutosh Choubey
21 December 2013 at 13:13
Please provide me the provision of CPC whereby a defendant can avoid personal appearance for adducing evidence in a Damage Suit. Can the application for appointment of pleader commissioner be moved before the civil court.
Kindly enlighten on the matter.
sk..........
21 December 2013 at 11:59
I have to file application for expartee order for decree in suit
pl. mention u/o section to file petition
sk..........
21 December 2013 at 11:57
suit is decreed for mandatory injunction as prayed ,now can I take over the suit property as municipal is not involved
or
should I have to file executuion petition.
sk..........
21 December 2013 at 11:47
In civil suit I have to file application for exparte decree of thesuit.
1- pl. mention u/o section by which I can make application
niky......
20 December 2013 at 23:02
This is a case going in small cause court.
When i went to the court today & wanted to see the original WS. It came to my surprise that there is an additional new document attracted and t was "Framing of Issues"
1. Framing was done on some random date i.e. no court case date was there on the date that is specified on the Framing issues document. Is this valid?
2. On inquiry to clerk was told that due to some highcourt orders this was done on urgency. Is there any such order in recent? November month?
3. Also can such a scenario happen or its necessary that framing should happen in presence or after discussion on framing issues between 2 parties?
What can i do in this scenario?
Thank you.
Dr.Vikas K.Chaturvedi
20 December 2013 at 22:51
I have requested one anticipatory bail on civil matter which is accepted and order to take bail within 15 days with Rs 10000 and two sureties each.
my question:
I am at the age of 65 year and doctor advice me not to move from bed (strict restriction to be on bed due to my artheritis problem till one month).
my bail date is going to end by 2/1/14. what should I do.
my laywer insisting me to appear in the cout at any how. but i want to rquest to court to grant me 15 days more time so that I can move easily on my feet as per the doctors advice.
I need your opinion?
Amartya
20 December 2013 at 20:41
This is regarding the outstanding credit card dues
Situation:-
My friend's father died almost 9 years ago. But the credit card company kept sending statements consistently all these years (in her father's name). But recently, a demand notice of 2-2.5 lacs has been issued by the company's advocate, which she can't afford to pay (Demand notice came via normal post - no acknowledgements made). No death certificates, documents regarding death of primary card holder has been sent.( No communication was made with them)
I came to know about the 3 years Statute of Limitation of debt collection from other queries posted here but some questions do remain -
Queries:-
Using the limitation period of 3 years she should ignore the notice but -
i. If the company takes further action (court suit etc. ) what is she supposed to do (Please note she is currently a student & its not possible for her to participate in any legal proceedings)?
ii. Should she inform the card company about death of card holder without accepting dues or let the company do whatever they want(just ignore any summons,statements and notice)?
iii. Her father had no WILL regarding property transfer when he died(i.e.- no legal property transfer took place) - can the card company use this fact to launch legal suit against the estate?
(@Experts, please bear with me for this long question!)
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Specific performance
Mr X has filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of styled agreement of sale on a paper by afixing a 20 paise on it. The document is of the year 1989. In the year 2012 he filed a suit for specific performance suit against the defendant. As the said document was unregistered, the Plaintiff filed an application to pay the deficit court fee and penalty. But the lower court come to the conclusion that the document is not at all an agreement deed and dismissed the application. thereafter the plaintiff freferred a WP before the High Court,but the same is dismissed. Subsequently, the defendant filed the said order of the HC along with a memo with prayer to dismiss the suit as there is no agreement deed and therefore the suit is not maintainable. but the lower court now posted for evidence of the plaintiff.
When the court comes to the conclusion that the document relied by the plaintiff is not an agreement deed, then what purpose the evidence of the plaintiff is required ? whether issued are to be recasted ? what will be the position of defendant?