• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.   9 - Civil Court jurisdiction which the Bar Council Rules bar must again be taken as an expression of self-belief that there could be no dispute which is not resolvable and hence a civil court will not interfere - Section 9 CPC will take care of every situation that determines the civil rights of parties, unless barred by law - Not prepared to pronounce whether the copy of the constitution and the rules framed of the Bar Council could be termed as "law" in order that Section 9 of the CPC does not operate - Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961). (177) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.   9 - Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) - Consumer Protection Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) - Theft of Electricity - Demand raised vide impugned order was also challenged by the appellant before the forum provided under the provisions of the Electricity Act as well as in the Consumer Forum but he remained unsuccessful - Those orders were never challenged by him - It is only when the remaining amount was being recovered from the appellant, the instant suit was filed challenging the impugned memo - Thus, appellant is clearly estopped from filing the instant suit by his act and conduct. (177) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.   9 - Respondent was not a party in the suit wherein the award was passed by the Lok Adalat - So the judgment can be avoided - When he is not a party to the award and, when, it is his case that the award was obtained fraudulently, without making him party to the alleged settlement, he has every right to challenge the same by way of filing a suit, in terms of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). (174) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.   9 - Said section enacts a rule of procedure that the civil court will have the jurisdiction to decide suits of all civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred - The bar must refer to what the Section admits - No order of the Collector or authority is brought in challenge before this Court - Plaintiff sourced their title to an order passed by the Collector and if that order, according to the defendants, is not valid or has not matured to full right in the property, it will be a matter of defence for the defendant who is a third party to the proceedings as far as the revenue authorities are concerned - The bar pleaded for the suit was clearly untenable - Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (13 of 1955) S. 47(1). (182) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.   9 - Where the orders are without jurisdiction and have been passed at the back of the party, such orders can always be challenged by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code - Additional Director had preponed the hearing of the matter without issuing any notice to the appellant-plaintiffs and passed the impugned order by proceeding the respondents therein and appellants herein as exparte - Suit challenging order de hors of the bar under Section 44 of the Act, the suit was/is maintainable - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) S. 42.      (180) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.   9 - Where there is breach of the agreement before stipulated date for the execution and registration of the sale deed, the vendor is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil court by seeking injunction - After expiry of the stipulated date or breach can seek the specific performance - Since the respondent-plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure by filing suit for mandatory injunction in March 2006, breach was already there and was not prevented to seek specific performance - However, the plaintiff did not avail remedy of specific performance - In my view, even the plaintiff had also given up the right to claim specific performance by filing suit for mandatory injunction.(181) P.L.R.