Supreme Court Judgments On Code Of Civil Procedure

Code Of Civil Procedure - CaseCiter

CaseCiterCaseCiter

Shubhkaran Singh vs Abhayraj Singh 2025 INSC 628 - Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC - S.165 Evidence Act

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XVII Rule 17 - If it appears to a court trying the suit at any stage of the proceedings that it is necessary to recall and further examine a witness it can always do so. This power can be exercised even at the stage of writing a judgment by the court. It is, however, proper that this power should not be exercised lightly and the rule is that it should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases only. The power is to be used for removing ambiguities, for clarifying the statement and not for the purposes of filling up the lacuna in a party's case. It is true that the power can be exercised by the Court at its own initiative and may even be so done at the instance of a party. (Para 7) The right to put questions to the witness recalled under Rule 17 is given only to the court and even cross-examination is not ordinarily permitted on the answers given to such questions, without the leave of the court -Witness cannot be recalled at the instance of a party for the purpose of examining, cross examining or re-examining, and that rule is not intended to serve such purpose, and the purpose for which that rule can be invoked is the one that is indicated above- If circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to recall a witness for examining, cross- examining or re-examining can be granted by a Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. (Para 8-10)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 165 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 – Section 168] - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XVII Rule 17 - If the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 are read along with the provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act it is clear that the power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the court trying the suit. The parties to the suit cannot take any objection to the question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine any witness without the leave of the court- (Para 7)

Santosh Devi vs Sunder 2025 INSC 627 - Order VII Rule 6 CPC -S. 17 Limitation Act - Registration

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 6 - It is necessary that the plaint should show the ground upon which the exemption from the normal period of limitation is claimed. (Para 18) It is not the mere use of general words such as ‘fraud’ that can serve as the foundation for the plea. Such expressions are quite ineffective to give the legal basis in the absence of particular statements of fact which alone can furnish the requisite basis for the action. (Para 19)

Dr. Vimal Sukumar vs D. Lawrence 2025 INSC 622 - Order 1 Rule 8 CPC -Interim Relief

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 1 Rule 8 - Grant of leave under Order 1 Rule 8 is not prerequisite for grant of interim reliefs since the permission under the said rule can be granted at any stage of the proceedings- While filing of application it is not a mandatory pre- condition for the institution of a suit or for the granting of interim relief, it is a procedural requirement that cannot be disregarded altogether which bears upon the binding nature of any orders issued. Therefore, while the absence of Order 1 Rule 8 is a curable defect, its compliance remains crucial to ensure the enforceability and representative effect of the orders passed. (Para 62-63)

J N Real Estate vs Shailendra Pradhan 2025 INSC 611 -Order I Rule 10(2) CPC - Impleadment

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) - The plaintiff, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and seek relief, yet this rule of impleadment would be subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) wherein courts are vested with the discretion to strike out or add parties to a suit depending on whether their impleadment is deemed necessary or proper- If a party is found to either a necessary or proper party, the court would have the jurisdiction to implead him, even against the wishes of the plaintiff concerned (Para 22-24) - Order I Rule 10(2) CPC did not pertain to the ‘right’ of a non-party to be impleaded as a party but deals with the ‘judicial discretion’ of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of the proceeding. In exercising this judicial discretion, courts must act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice- The court may exercise discretion in impleading a person who is a ‘proper party’ upon an application by a non-party to the suit for specific performance. If the court is of the view that the impleadment of such a proper party will alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action, it may either refuse to implead such person or order for his impleadment on certain conditions. However, even otherwise, the court would not be precluded from impleading a ‘proper party’ unconditionally in its discretion. (Para 28-29) - Referred to Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417. 

A party who is seeking impleadment may not be a necessary party but still, could be termed as a proper party. There is a fine distinction between a necessary party and a proper party. A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. Whereas a proper party is one who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit. (Para 32)

K. Valarmathi vs. Kumaresan 2025 INSC 606 - Art. 227 Constitution - Rejection Of Plaint

Constitution of India - Article 227 ; Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 reject a plaint? SC held that High Court erred in law invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to reject the plaint and observed: Civil Procedure Code is a self-contained Code and Order VII Rule 11 therein enumerates the circumstances in which the trial court may reject a plaint. Such rejection amounts to a deemed decree which is appealable before the High Court under Section 96 of the Code. This statutory scheme cannot be upended by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 to entertain a prayer for rejection of plaint. (Para 10) Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. (Para 9)

P. Kumarakurubaran vs P. Narayanan 2025 INSC 598 - CPC - Rejection Of Plaint - Limitation Act - Date Of Knowledge

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order VII Rule 11(d) - When the question of limitation involves disputed facts or hinges on the date of knowledge, such issues cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC- Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. (Para 12.1-12.2)

Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) vs Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj 2025 INSC 570 - CPC- Compromise Decree

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 3,3A - Order XLIII Rule 1-A - If a person was already a party to the suit, and denies that any lawful compromise ever took place, the CPC requires that person to go back to the Trial Court under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 and ask that Court to decide whether the compromise is valid. On the other hand, someone who was not a party to the suit, but whose rights are hurt by a consent decree, may approach the Appellate Court in a First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, but only after obtaining leave. Order XLIII Rule 1-A does not create an independent appeal at all; it merely says that, once an appeal is otherwise before the Court, the appellant may argue that the compromise should, or should not, have been recorded. (Para 15)

Amruddin Ansari (D) vs Afajal Ali 2025 INSC 566 -CPC - Fresh Suit After Dismissal For Default

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order IX Rule 4 -Whether after the dismissal of the petition for restoration of suit under Order IX Rule 4 of the C.P.C. a fresh suit is maintainable? A fresh suit is maintainable even after the rejection of the application filed under Order IX Rule 4 of the C.P.C- In case of dismissal of suit under Order IX Rule 4 of the C.P.C. the plaintiff has both the remedies of filing of fresh suit or application for restoration of the suit. If he chooses one remedy, he is not debarred from availing himself of the other remedy. Both these remedies are simultaneous and would not exclude either of them. (Para 21)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order IX Rule 2,3-Whether after dismissal of the suit for default, a fresh suit is barred by res judicata? If a fresh suit is filed, then such an order of dismissal cannot and shall not operate a res judicata. (Para 26)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order IX Rule 2,3,4,8-  where the suit is dismissed under Rule 2 or Rule 3 of Order IX, the remedy provided is under Rule 4 of Order IX of the C.P.C. In case of such dismissal, the plaintiff either brings a fresh suit on the same cause of action or he may apply for setting aside the order of dismissal and for restoration of suit. Whereas if the suit is dismissed under Rule 8 of Order IX of the C.P.C., the plaintiff cannot bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The only remedy available to the plaintiff is to move an application for setting aside the order of dismissal and for restoration of suit. (Para 16)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order IX Rule 2,3- An order of dismissal of a suit or application in default under Rule 2 or Rule 3 of Order IX of the C.P.C. is neither an adjudication or a decree nor it is an appealable order. If that is so, such order of dismissal of a suit under Rule 2 or Rule 3 of Order IX of the C.P.C. does not fulfill the requirement of the term “judgment” or “decree”, inasmuch as there is no adjudication. (Para 26)

Res Judicata - The principle of res judicata is based on the common law maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa”, which means that no man shall be vexed twice over the same cause of action. It is a doctrine applied to give finality to a lis. According to this doctrine, an issue or a point once decided and attends finality, should not be allowed to be reopened and re-agitated in a subsequent suit. In other words, if an issue involved in a suit is finally adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the same issue in a subsequent suit cannot be allowed to be re-agitated. It is, therefore, clear that for the application of principle of res judicata, there must be an adjudication of an issue in a suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Para 23)

Shrikanth NS vs K. Munivenkatappa 2025 INSC 557- Order XI Rule 14 CPC

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XI Rule 14 - The provision enables the Court to seek production of the documents during the pendency of the suit. (Para 9)

Kanchhu vs Prakash Chand 2025 INSC 542 - CPC - Ex Parte Defendant Rights - Pleadings

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 -Order VI Rule 2- Pleadings, either in a plaint or a written statement, constitute the plinth on which the respective claims and defence of the parties to a civil suit rest. What a pleading ought to contain is provided in Order VI Rule 2, CPC. Only material facts, on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence to succeed, have to be stated without the evidence by which the pleading is to be proved. (Para 19)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 -The rights of a defendant in a civil suit where such defendant has been set ex parte. - Once the pleadings are complete but the defendant is set ex parte, and such order has attained finality, the defendant’s rights suffer a curtailment. He cannot produce evidence in defence and hence statements, which are in the nature of factual assertions, cannot be proved by leading evidence. Generally speaking, the limited right that the defendant, set ex parte, would have is confined to cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses. The effort has to be directed towards demonstrating that they are not speaking the truth and, thereby, demolish the case of the plaintiff. Essentially, therefore, in such a case the defendant has to convince the court that the case put up by the plaintiff is so false that the court ought not to accept it. However, if the defendant raises an issue on law which is traceable in the written statement, for instance, the suit is barred by limitation or Section 9, CPC is attracted, or if the relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted for reasons disclosed, the requirement of the defendant proving such defence as raised in the written statement by leading evidence may not arise and the court may frame an issue of law and decide the same. (Para 19)

Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited 2025 INSC 533 - Order XX Rule 1 CPC - Commercial Courts Act

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XX Rule 1 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 -Section 13(1-A) - Order XX Rule 1 CPC as amended and made applicable to the Commercial Courts is to be treated as only directory and not mandatory. So notwithstanding the provision contained in the amended Order XX Rule 1 CPC (mandating issuance of copies to the parties to the dispute through electronic mail or otherwise), if such copies are not issued within a reasonable time, the parties to the dispute have to apply for the same, and after obtaining it, prefer an appeal within the time prescribed in Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. -Merely because Order XX Rule I enjoins a duty upon the commercial courts to provide the copies of the judgment that does not mean that the parties can shirk away all responsibility of endeavoring to procure the certified copies thereof in their own capacity. (Para 10-20)

Limitation - The law of limitation cannot be read in such a manner whereby parties stop showing any modicum of regard for their own rights and on the pre-text of untimely communication continue to litigate without being vigilante themselves. (Para 14)

Angadi Chandranna vs Shankar 2025 INSC 532 - Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Doctrine Of Blending - Partition - Second Appeal

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100-103 - The authority to re-consider the evidence is available only to the First Appellate Court under Section 96 and not to the High Court in exercise of its authority under Section 100, unless the case falls under the exceptional circumstances provided under Section 103- High Court can go into the findings of facts only if the First Appellate Court has failed to look into the law or evidence or considered inadmissible evidence or without evidence. Section 103 permits the High Court to go into the facts only when the courts below have not determined or rendered any finding on a crucial fact, despite evidence already available on record or after deciding the substantial question of law, the facts of a particular case demand re-determination. For the second limb of Section 103 to apply, there must first be a decision on the substantial question of law, to which the facts must be applied, to determine the issue in dispute. When the First Appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has considered the entire evidence and rendered a finding, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence just because another view is possible, when the view taken by the First Appellate Court is plausible and does not suffer from vice in law. When the determination of the High Court is only by way of re-appreciation of the existing evidence, without there being any legal question to be answered, it would be axiomatic that not even a question of law is involved, much less a substantial one. (Para 12.1)

Electrosteel Steel Limited vs ISPAT Carrier Private Limited 2025 INSC 525 - S.34 Arbitration Act - Execution Of Arbitration Award - S. 47 CPC Objections - IBC Moratorium

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 47 - An objection as to executability of the decree can be raised but such objection is limited to the ground of jurisdictional infirmity or voidness- only a decree which is a nullity can be the subject matter of objection under Section 47 CPC and not one which is erroneous either in law or on facts. (Para 48)

Nafees Ahmad vs Soinuddin 2025 INSC 520 - Order XLII Rule 30,31 CPC

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLII Rule 31 - Whether in a particular case, there has been substantial compliance, with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC should be determined on the nature of the judgment delivered in each case. Non-compliance with the provisions, by itself, may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void and may be ignored if there has been a substantial compliance with it - The provisions of Rule 31 should therefore be reasonably construed and should be held to require the various particulars to be mentioned in the judgment only when the appellant has actually raised certain points for determination by the Appellate Court, and not when no such points are raised. (Para 9-12) [ Followed G. Amalorpavam And Others v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai (2006) 3 SCC 224] [Context: SC set aside HC judgment which held that Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is mandatory and the failure on the part of the Appellate Court to frame the points for determination as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC would vitiate the entire judgment and make it wholly void]

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLII Rule 30 - This Rule does not make it incumbent on the Appellate Court to refer to any part of the proceedings in the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred. The Appellate Court can refer, after hearing the parties and their pleaders, to any part of these proceedings to which reference be considered necessary. It is in the discretion of the Appellate Court to refer to the proceedings. It is competent to pronounce judgment after hearing what the parties or their pleaders submit to it for consideration. It follows therefore that if the appellant submits nothing for its consideration, the Appellate Court can decide the appeal without any reference to any proceedings of the courts below and, in doing so, it can simply say that the appellants have not urged anything which would tend to show that the judgment and decree under appeal were wrong. (Para 13-14)

Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi vs Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi (D) 2025 INSC 517 - Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC - Compromise Decree

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 3, 3A - The only remedy against a compromise decree is to file a recall application- No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree having regard to the specific bar contained in Section 96(3) CPC- No independent suit can be filed for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful in view of the bar contained in Rule 3-A. Referred to Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 566. (Para 10-12) [Context: SC upheld dismissal of a suit for declaring a compromise decree entered into as null and void]

Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs B. Gunashekar 2025 INSC 490 - TP Act - Income Tax

Civil Suits - Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 269ST -(A) Whenever, a suit is filed with a claim that Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is paid by cash towards any transaction, the courts must intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the transaction and the violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, if any, (B) Whenever, any such information is received either from the court or otherwise, the Jurisdictional Income Tax authority shall take appropriate steps by following the due process in law, (C) Whenever, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is claimed to be paid by cash towards consideration for conveyance of any immovable property in a document presented for registration, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Authority who shall follow the due process in law before taking any action, (D) Whenever, it comes to the knowledge of any Income Tax Authority that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- or above has been paid by way of consideration in any transaction relating to any immovable property from any other source or during the course of search or assessment proceedings, the failure of the registering authority shall be brought to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary of the State/UT for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against such officer who failed to intimate the transactions.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 -Order VII Rule 11 CPC serves as a crucial filter in civil litigation, enabling courts to terminate proceedings at the threshold where the plaintiff's case, even if accepted in its entirety, fails to disclose any cause of action or is barred by law, either express or by implication - There is a bounden duty on the Court to discern and identify fictitious suit, which on the face of it would be barred, but for the clever pleadings disclosing a cause of action, that is surreal. Generally, sub-clauses (a) and (d) are stand alone grounds, that can be raised by the defendant in a suit. However, it cannot be ruled out that under certain circumstances, clauses (a) and (d) can be mutually inclusive. For instances, when clever drafting veils the implied bar to disclose the cause of action; it then becomes the duty of the Court to lift the veil and expose the bar to reject the suit at the threshold. The power to reject a plaint under this provision is not merely procedural but substantive, aimed at preventing abuse of the judicial process and ensuring that court time is not wasted on fictitious claims failing to disclose any cause of action to sustain the suit or barred by law. (Para 14.1) - Only averments in the plaint are to be considered under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. While it is true that the defendant's defense is not to be considered at this stage, this does not mean that the court must accept patently untenable claims or shut its eyes to settled principles of law and put the parties to trial, even in cases which are barred and the cause of action is fictitious. (Para 17) When the defects go to the root of the case, barred by law with fictitious allegations and are incurable, no amount of evidence can salvage the case (Para 16) Merely including a paragraph on cause of action is not sufficient but rather, on a meaningful reading of the plaint and the documents, it must disclose a cause of action. The plaint should contain such cause of action that discloses all the necessary facts required in law to sustain the suit and not mere statements of fact which fail to disclose a legal right of the plaintiff to sue and breach or violation by the defendant(s). It is pertinent to note here that even if a right is found, unless there is a violation or breach of that right by the defendant, the cause of action should be deemed to be unreal. This is where the substantive laws like Specific Relief Act, 1963, Contract Act, 1872, and Transfer of Property Act, 1882, come into operation. A pure question of law that can be decided at the early stage of litigation, ought to be decided at the earliest stage. In the present case, the respondents' claim based on an agreement to sell. (Para 15)

Nikhila Divyang Mehta vs Hitesh P. Sanghvi 2025 INSC 485 - CPC - Rejection Of Plaint - Limitation Act - Declaration Suit

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - When the other reliefs are dependent upon the first relief and cannot be granted until and unless the plaintiff succeeds in the first relief, once the plaint or the suit in respect of the main relief stands barred by time, the other ancillary relief claimed therein also falls down. (Para 29)

Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Limited 2025 INSC 483 - Copyright Act - Design Act

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order VII Rule 11 ; Copyright Act ; Designs Act - The question as to whether the original artistic work would fall within the meaning of ‘design’ under the Designs Act cannot be answered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. This stage would involve only a prima facie inquiry as to the disclosure of cause of action in the plaint. The question pertaining to ascertaining the true nature of the ‘Proprietary Engineering Drawings’ involves a mixed question of law and fact and could not have been decided by the Commercial Court at a preliminary stage based upon such a casual appraisal of the plaint averments. (Para 67)

R. Nagaraj (D) vs Rajmani 2025 INSC 478 - CPC - Framing of Issues - Limitation

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Framing of Issues - There could be several points directly or indirectly connected with the main issue that has been framed. In such cases, when the larger issue that has been framed is wide enough to cover different points of disputes within it, there is no necessity to frame a specific issue on that aspect. Further, when the parties go to trial with the knowledge that a particular point is at lis, had full opportunity to let in evidence, they cannot later turn back to say that a specific issue was not framed. All that is required under law, is for the Court to render a finding on the particular fact or law in dispute, on the facts of the case - Such evidence, in the absence of pleadings, cannot permit either of the parties to make out a new case- The Courts are vested with powers to go into the question of law, touching upon either the limitation or the jurisdiction, even if no plea is raised and not in cases, where facts have to be pleaded and evidence has to be let in. (Para 21)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 -High Court possesses the authority to entertain second appeals strictly on substantial questions of law. Upon admitting such an appeal, the High Court is empowered to frame substantial questions and adjudicate them directly, without the necessity of remanding the matter to the trial court. This approach ensures judicial efficiency and prevents unnecessary prolongation of litigation. (Para 12.1)

Practice and Procedure - A question of law can be raised at any stage. (Para 20)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Limitation Act 1961 - Civil Procedure Code and the law of limitation, being procedural laws, meant to assist the Courts in the process of rendering justice, cannot curtail the power of the Courts to render justice. Procedural laws after all are handmaid of justice. What is to be seen is whether any irregularity arising from a failure to follow procedure has caused serious prejudice to the parties. It is not to be forgotten that the process of adjudication is to discern the truth. (Para 20)

Chatha Service Station vs Lalmati Devi 2025 INSC 468 - Motor Accident Compensation - Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Only if there is a satisfactory explanation for the non-production before the original court, i.e. despite exercise of due diligence or the same was not within the knowledge of the party or it could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence, could there be an acceptance of the document at the appellate stage. (Para 18)

Rajiv Ghosh vs Satya Naryan Jaiswal 2025 INSC 467 - Order XII Rule 6 - Admissions

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - The words “or otherwise” are wide enough to include all cases of admissions made in the pleadings or de hors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court. If one of the parties' statement is recorded under O. 10, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also a statement which elucidates matters in controversy. Any admission in such statement is relevant not only for the purpose of finding out the real dispute between the parties but also to ascertain as to whether or not any dispute or controversy exists between the parties. Admission if any is made by a party in the statement recorded, would be conclusive against him and the Court can proceed to pass judgment on the basis of the admission made therein. (Para 35-37)

Uma Devi vs Anand Kumar 2025 INSC 434 - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection Of Plaint - Registration

Code of Civil Procedure -Order VII Rule 11 - If in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted - Quoted from Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366 [Context: SC upheld Trial Court order that allowed the application of the defendants/appellants, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred by limitation].(Para 16-17)

I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Rajasthan 2025 INSC 418 - S. 34 CPC - Grant Of Interest- Public Interest

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 34 -Court to grant interest at three different stages of a money decree viz., (i) the court may award interest on the principal sum claimed at a rate it deems reasonable, for the period before the suit was filed. Such interest is generally governed by agreements between the parties; (ii) The court may award interest on the principal amount from the date of filing the suit until the date of the decree, at a reasonable rate. Here, the court has full discretion to determine the interest rate based on fairness, commercial usage and equity; and (iii)the court may grant interest on the total decretal amount (principal + interest before decree) from the date of the decree until payment, at a rate not exceeding 6% per annum unless otherwise specified in contractual agreements or statutory provisions. However, if the claim arises from a commercial transaction, courts may allow interest at a higher rate based on agreements between the parties- Courts have the authority to determine the appropriate interest rate, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in accordance with law. That apart, the Courts have the discretion to decide whether the interest is payable from the date of institution of the suit, a period prior to that, or from the date of the decree, depending on the specific facts of each case- while the discretion to award interest, whether pendente lite or post-decree, is well recognized, its exercise must be guided by equitable considerations. The rate and period of interest cannot be applied mechanically or at an unreasonably high rate without any rationale.rationale. Though it is not possible to arrive at the actual value of improvement or the inflation on the fair consideration, if paid at the relevant point of time, it is just and necessary that the rate of interest must be a reparation for the appellant. The Court must ensure that while the claimant is fairly compensated, the award does not become punitive or unduly burdensome on the Judgement Debtor. Therefore, the rate of interest should be determined in a manner that balances both fairness and financial impact, taking into account the “loss of use” principle and economic prudence, in the specific facts of each case. (Para 13-16)

Uttam Rice Mill vs. Ashok Construction Company - Order XXI Rule 106,17(IA) CPC - Restoration Of Execution Proceedings

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order XXI Rule 106, 17 (lA) - Execution Court dismissed application seeking restoration of the execution proceedings - Upholding this order, SC observed: Even if it were assumed that the facts of the case did not demand application of Rule 17 (lA) of Order XXI of the CPC by the Executing Court while dismissing the execution application, the mere conduct of the decree-holder, which had been laden with lethargy and passivity throughout makes it unjustifiable to grant any relief to the respondent - A litigant who is not vigilant and prompt towards his cause must not be allowed to claim equity before a Court of law - It is blatantly apparent that the respondent’s conduct in initiating execution proceedings a decade after the money decree was passed and then remaining absent before the Executing Court for a period of five years, and yet taking another year in filing a restoration application post the dismissal of execution application reeks of nothing but non-diligent conduct throughout. (Para 14-17)

J. Ganapatha Vs N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust 2025 INSC 395 - Moulding Of Relief

Moulding Of Relief - The concept of moulding of relief refers to the ability of a court to modify or shape a relief sought by a party in a legal proceeding based on the circumstances of the case and the facts established after a full-fledged trial. The principle enables the court to grant appropriate remedies even if the relief requested in the pleading is not exact or could not be considered by the court or changed circumstances have rendered the relief obsolete. The court aims that justice is served while taking into account the evolving nature of a case. The above road map is pursued by a court based on the notion of flexibility in relief, equitable jurisdiction, and is tempered by judicial discretion. When moulding the relief, the court considers the issues and circumstances established during the full-fledged trial, looks at shortening the litigation, and then in its perspective, renders complete justice to the issue at hand. The converse of the above is that the moulded relief should not take the aggrieved party by surprise or cause prejudice. The relief is moulded as an exception and not as a matter of course- the court of first instance, while exercising the discretion to mould the relief, juxtaposes the consideration with the established conditions of the original relief becoming inappropriate or shortening the litigation and enabling rendering complete justice between the parties. The scrutiny on the moulding of relief by the appellate court tests the exercise of discretion by the trial court, but not in all cases, sit in the very armchair of the court which moulded the relief and re-examine every detail unless prejudice and grave injustice are pointed out against the moulding of relief. In a further appeal on the moulding of relief, the examination by the second appellate court ought to be minimal and not unsettle the settled. (Para 20-25)

Yerikala Sunkalamma Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 383 - S.80 CPC Notice - Art.300A Constitution - Declaratory Title Suits Against Government

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Section 80 -The primary objective behind Section 80 of the CPC is to provide the Government or a public officer with an opportunity to assess the legal merits of a claim and potentially settle it if it appears to be just and reasonable (Para 97)- A statutory notice holds significance beyond mere formality. Its purpose is to provide the Government or a public officer with an opportunity to reconsider the matter in light of established legal principles and make a decision in accordance with the law - A notice issued under Section 80 must include: i. The name, description, and place of residence of the person providing the notice. ii. A statement outlining the cause of action. iii. The relief sought by the plaintiff. - When determining whether the essential requirements of the Section have been met, the court should consider the following questions: (i) Has the notice provided adequate information to allow the authorities to identify the person issuing the notice? (ii) Have the cause of action and the relief sought by the plaintiff been sufficiently detailed? (iii) Has the written notice been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority as specified in the section? (iv) Has the suit been initiated after the expiration of two months following the delivery or submission of the notice, and does the plaint include a statement confirming that such notice has been provided as required? (Para 103-105)

Declaratory title suits against the Government- Principles that govern the adjudication: i. Suits for declaration of title against the government differ from suits against private parties on two counts: a. First, there is a presumption in favour of the Government in such suits, as all lands which are unoccupied or not vested in any individual or local authority, are presumed to belong exclusively to the Government. b. Secondly, there is an additional burden of proof on the party seeking declaration of title against the Government. The plaintiff has to establish its possession over the land in question for a period of thirty years as opposed to twelve years in the case of adverse possession against a private party. ii. A decree declaring title against the Government must not be passed casually. Before granting any such decree, the trial court must ensure that the plaintiff has furnished adequate documentary evidence, either through title deeds tracing ownership for over thirty years or by establishing adverse possession for a period of thirty years. iii. The trial court must verify whether the name of the plaintiff has been recorded as the owner, holder, or occupant in the relevant revenue or municipal records for more than thirty years. iv. Finally, the trial court must carefully scrutinize the nature of the possession as may be asserted, determining whether the same is authorized or unauthorized, permissive or casual, furtive or clandestine, as well as open, continuous, and hostile, or implied by title, to ensure that public property is not inadvertently converted into private ownership by unscrupulous elements. (Para 88) Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness. The Public Authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation. They are expected to let the plaintiff know their stand within the statutory period or in any case before he embarks upon the litigation. In certain cases, courts may be obliged to draw adverse presumption against the Public Authorities for not acknowledging the notice or telling the plaintiff of its stand and in the absence of that, a stand taken during the course of trial may be considered as an afterthought. (Para 113)

Raju Naidu vs Chenmouga Sundra 2025 INSC 368 - Execution -Limited Rights Of Transferee Pendent Lite

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI - Transfer of Property Act - Section 53A -Limited rights of the transferee pendent lite on the principle of lis pendens - Such limited rights cannot be stretched to obstruct and resist the full claim of the decree holders to execute the decree in their favour. 

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare vs Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) 2025 INSC 355 - Order I Rule 9 - Necessary Party

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 9 - Care must be taken to ensure that the necessary party is before the court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise, the suit or the proceedings will have to fail - Quoted form of Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh v Collector, (2003) 3 SCC 472. (Para 24)

Rabindranath Panigrahi vs Surendra Sahu 2025 INSC 333- S 100 CPC - Second Appeal

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 -A finding of fact could not be disturbed by the Court in the Second Appeal, as it was not open for the Court to examine the evidence assuming First Appeal jurisdiction, unless the findings returned were perverse. (Para 10)

Himalayan Brahmo Samaj Mandir Trust Shimla vs Bindiya Kuller - S 92 CPC - Transfer Of Suit To ADJ

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 92 -The institution of a suit under Section 92 CPC before the Principal District Judge, and its transfer thereafter, to the Additional District Judge due to an administrative exigency -Section 6 read with Sections 9 and 17 of the HP Courts Act clearly gives jurisdiction to the Principal District Judge, to transfer a case. Section 2(b) of the HP Courts Act also defines a District Judge to include an Additional District Judge.

Periyammal (Dead) vs V. Rajamani 2025 INSC 329 - Execution Petitions Delay- Order XXI Rule 97 -101 CPC - S. 47 CPC

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Execution Petitions -Long and inordinate delay at the end of the Executing Courts across the country in deciding execution petitions - The mandatory direction requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing reiterated - Directions issued: High Courts across the country to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is collected by all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court with individual reports.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 47 with Order XXI Rule 101 - The questions relating to right, title or interest in a decretal property must be related to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The import of such a reading of the provisions is that only matters arising subsequent to the passing of the decree can be determined by an executing court under Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 101.- The issues that ought to have been raised by the parties during the adjudication of the original suit cannot be determined by the executing court as such adjudication may undermine the decree itself- benefit of Section 47 cannot be availed to conduct a retrial causing failure of realisation of fruits of the decree. (Para 62- 63)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 47 with Order XXI Rule 97 - Section 47 is a general provision whereas Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 deal with a specific situation. Moreover, Section 47 deals with executions of all kinds of decrees whereas Order XXI, Rules 97 and 101 deal only with execution of decree for possession -Even an application filed under Section 47 would be treated as an application under Order XXI Rule 97 and an adjudication is required to be conducted under Rule 98. Dispossession of the applicant from the property is not a condition for declining to entertain the application. (Para 52-54)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 97 -101- Rules 97 to 101 deal with situation when execution is obstructed or resisted by “any person” claiming right, title or interest in the property. The words “any person” include even a stranger to a decree resisting the decree of possession as not being bound by a decree or by claiming independent right, title or interest to the property. Rule 97 not only provides remedy to a decree holder in obtaining possession of an immovable property but also to a stranger who obstructs or resists delivery of possession of the property by claiming derivative title from the judgment debtor or independent right, title or interest in the decretal property. Whereas, Rule 99 gives right to a third party claiming right, title or interest in the property to seek restoration of the decretal property. Suffice it to say that the remedy under Rule 99 is available when a person claiming right to the decretal property is already dispossessed. (Para 49)

Lavanya C vs Vittal Gurudas Pai 2025 INSC 325 - Order XXXIX Rule 2A - Violation Of Injunction - Lawyer Client Relationship

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 1,2, 2A- Even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased -The rigour of such disobedience may be toned down if the order is subsequently set aside- Referred to Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998) 7 SCC 59. (Para 7.4)

C Prabhakar Rao vs Sama Mahipal Reddy 2025 INSC 311 - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree & Delay Condonation

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order IX Rule 13- The procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree will be distinct from the procedure for condoning the delayed filing of the application to set aside the ex-parte decree - The adjudication and determination of a court with respect to setting aside the ex-parte decree are independent of the adjudication with respect to condoning the delay -The remedies against these orders are independent and one remedy would not subsume the other. They must be adopted and pursued independently. (Para 11)

K. Ramasamy vs R. Nallammal 2025 INSC 310 Delay Condonation - Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order IX Rule 13- High Court order condoned a 1312-day delay and set aside an ex-parte decree - Allowing appeal, SC observed: There is falsity writ large, in the submission of the lawyer having misplaced the files. The application to set aside the ex­parte decree was only an afterthought and purely experimental. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. (Para 11)

Ram Lal vs Jarnail Singh (D) 2025 INSC 301 - S. 28 Specific Relief Act - Order XX Rule 12A CPC

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XX Rule 12A - Rule 12A makes it obligatory for the court to specify in the decree for specific performance of contract for sale or lease of immovable property the date by which purchase money or other sum should be paid by the vendee or lessee. The trial court has jurisdiction to fix time-limit for depositing the money by the decree- holder under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The decree is preliminary in nature and the court retains control over it. (Para 34) Appellate Courts owe a duty to comply with the provisions of Order XX Rule 12A -Where an appeal is filed against the decree passed by the trial court and the appeal is disposed of, the appellate court should specify time to deposit the balance sale consideration- It is too much to say that since the trial court had granted two months time to the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration the same time period would apply even to the decree that may be drawn by the appellate court. What is executable is the decree passed by the appellate court. The appellate court owes a duty to specify the time period.(Para 50)

Pappammal (D) vs Jothi 2025 INSC 277 - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Necessary Party

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 (2) - The entire purpose of a Trial is to reach the truth of the matter and it is absolutely important that all necessary parties must be heard, before a decision is taken by the Court. (Para 12)

M. S. Ananthamurthy vs J. Manjula 2025 INSC 273- Transfer of Property - Registration Act - Power Of Attorney - Res Judicata

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 - Res Judicata - Where the question of title is “directly and substantially” in issue in a suit for injunction, and where a finding on an issue of title is necessary for granting the injunction, with a specific issue on title raised and framed, a specific prayer for a declaration of title is not necessary. As a result, a second suit would be barred when facts regarding title have been pleaded and decided by the Trial Court - Where a finding on title is necessary for granting an injunction and has been substantially dealt with by the Trial Court in a suit for injunction, a direct and specific prayer for a declaration of title is not a necessity- Where a finding on an issue of title is not necessary for deciding the question of possession and the grant of an injunction, or where no issue on title has been framed to decide a suit for injunction, any observation or decision on title would be incidental and collateral and will not operate as res judicata. However, findings on an issue of title in an earlier suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit where the question of title is directly and substantially in issue in a suit for injunction. (Para 58-59)

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Mahadeo Krishna Naik 2025 INSC 218 - Labour Law - Industrial Disputes - Back Wages - Burden Of Proof

Code of Civil Procedure - Section 114 and Order XLVII - The court can look into any document, having a bearing on the lis decided earlier, which was not on record because despite exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced by a party. It would invariably reduce to an examination as to whether the document has such intrinsic worth that if the same had been produced, the outcome could have been different. (Para 35)

Bankat Swami Trust vs Daiwan(D) - CPC - Second Appeal - Finding Of Fact

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - The High Court, if it is of the view that a finding of fact is required for the adjudication of the second appeal, can call for the same from the Trial Court, by keeping the appeal pending- For the aforesaid purpose, there is no need to set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and, thereafter, remit it to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. (Para 3-4)

N. Mohanasundaram vs K.M.Vinothan - Order I Rule 10 CPC

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - What is required to be considered while dealing with an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, is as to whether a party is a necessary and proper party for adjudication. Discretion is given to the Court to decide the said fact, for which even an application is not required. In other words, the discretion given is to facilitate the Court to arrive at the correct decision.

Tomorrowland Limited vs Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited 2025 INSC 207 - S 34 CPC - Award Of Interest - Contract - Equity - Commercial Disputes

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 34 - The award of interest is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations - The power to award interest ought to be exercised judiciously, aligning with equitable considerations and also ensuring neither undue enrichment nor unfair deprivation. Courts are duty-bound to assess the facts and circumstances of each case, applying the principles of fairness and justice. This discretion must reflect a balanced approach, grounded in reason, and guided by the overarching objective of equity. (Para 49-50)

Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (D) vs Satish Chandra (D) 2025 INSC 183 - Order XXII Rule 1,4 CPC - Abatement - Substitution - Limitation

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order XXII Rule 1 - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 120,121 -The total time-frame for filing an application for substitution and for setting aside abatement, as outlined in Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act, is 150 (90 + 60) days. The question of condonation of delay, through an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, arises only after this period and not on the 91st day when the suit/appeal abates- The proper sequence to be followed, therefore, is an application for substitution within 90 days of death and if not filed, to file an application for setting aside the abatement within 60 days and if that too is not filed, to file the requisite applications for substitution and setting aside the abatement with an accompanying application for condonation of delay in filing the latter application, i.e., the application for setting aside the abatement. Once the court is satisfied that sufficient cause prevented the plaintiff/appellant from applying for setting aside the abatement within the period of limitation and orders accordingly, comes the question of setting the abatement. That happens as a matter of course and following the order for substitution of the deceased defendant/respondent, the suit/appeal regains its earlier position and would proceed for a trial/hearing on merits. (Para 11 )

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order XXII Rule 4 - The law not having expressly mandated that an application for substitution has to be filed by the plaintiff/appellant upon receiving intimation of death, requiring a formal application from the plaintiff only will serve no tangible purpose. (Para 19) When an application praying for substitution had been made, then, even assuming that it does not have an explicit prayer for setting aside the abatement, such prayer could be read as inherent in the prayer for substitution in the interest of justice. (Para 23)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order XXII Rule 10A - Rule 10A casts a duty upon a pleader appearing for a party to the suit to intimate the court about the death of such party. It further provides that once the court is informed by the pleader of a party that he is no more, the court “shall” notify the opposing party of the death. A straightforward interpretation of this rule would suggest that the court's obligation to issue notice to the other party is indeed mandatory. Nonetheless, this obligation may not arise in all circumstances. One notable exception could be when the information regarding the party's death is conveyed to the court in the presence of the opposing party's pleader or is documented by the court in the order sheet. In such cases, if the pleader of the concerned party (and consequently the party itself) has already been notified, issuing a further notice from the court would not serve any substantial purpose other than being an exercise by way of abundant caution. Therefore, in the aforementioned scenario, the absence of a notice from the court would not imply a failure to comply with Rule 10A, suggesting that it is not “always mandatory”. (Para 29)

Charan Singh vs Ram Saroop - S 96 CPC -Composite Appeal

Code of Civil Procedure - Section 96 - Order XLI Rule 1 - Trial Court dismissed suit and allowed counter claim - Instead of filing two appeals with separate memoranda of appeal, the appellant - plaintiff filed one composite appeal challenging the common judgment and order of the trial court. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable since the appellant had not filed two separate appeals - HC upheld the dismissal - Allowing appeal, SC observed: A composite appeal was not maintainable in law but, at the same time, the first appellate court ought to have borne in mind that courts exist for rendering justice albeit in accordance with law- In terms of Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC, the appellate court has the power to even dispense with the requirement of law of filing copy of the impugned judgment twice over if it is part of the memorandum of appeal already filed- the court ought to have at least alerted the appellant by making him aware of the requirement of law and giving him the liberty to file a separate memorandum of appeal - If even after being alerted the appellant had failed to file a separate memorandum, the first appellate court would have been perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal- Technicality of a nature such as this should not have been allowed to prevail over substantive justice. (Para 7-8)

Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick Vs Ranajit Ghoshal 2025 INSC 175 - Order XXI Rule 32 - Imprisonment Of JD - Jurisdictional Error

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 32 - Imprisonment of a judgment-debtor is no doubt a drastic step and would prevent him from moving anywhere he likes, but once it is proved that he had wilfully and with impunity disobeyed an order of injunction, the court owes it to itself to make the judgment-debtor realise that it does not pay to defy a decree of a court. Failure to exercise this power in appropriate cases might verily undermine the respect for judicial institutions in the eyes of litigants. The court’s power under Order 21, Rule 32 is no more than a procedural aid to the harried decree-holder. Where the judgment-debtor disobeys a decree of injunction, he can be dealt with under this rule by his imprisonment or by attachment of his property or by both. But the court has to record a finding that the judgment-debtor wilfully disobeyed or failed to comply with the decree in spite of opportunity afforded to him. Absence of such finding is a serious infirmity vitiating the order. (Para 44-45) what is required of the person seeking execution of the decree for injunction under the sub- rule is to place materials before the executing Court as would enable it to conclude (i) that the person bound by the decree, was fully aware of the terms of the decree and its binding nature upon him; and (ii) that that person has had an opportunity of obeying such decree, but has wilfully, i.e., consciously and deliberately, disobeyed such decree, so that it can make an order of his detention as sought for. Thus, the onus of placing materials before the executing Court for enabling it to record a finding that the person against whom the order of detention is sought, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree for injunction, but has wilfully disobeyed it, lies on the person seeking such order of detention, lest the person seeking deprivation of the liberty of another cannot do so without fully satisfying the Court about its need. (Para 51)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 32 Each breach of injunction is independent and actionable in law making the judgment-debtor answerable. Where there are successive breaches of decree, the judgment-debtor can be dealt with on every such breach and the doctrine of res judicata has no application. The court is expected to take strict view and stern action. (Para 46)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 32 - A decree of permanent injunction is executable with the aid of the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code referred to above, and any act in violation or breach of decree of permanent injunction is a continuing disobedience entailing penal consequences. (Para 36)

Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Section 115 - Jurisdictional Error - If an error, be it an error of fact or of law, is such that the erroneous decision has resulted in the subordinate Court or tribunal exercising jurisdiction, not vested in it by law, or in its having failed to exercise jurisdiction, vested in it by law, that will come within the scope of Section 115 of the Code or, for the matter of that, of Article 227 of the Constitution, as the case may be. This error may have resulted from a violation of rules of natural justice, by taking into consideration matters which are extraneous and irrelevant, or by substituting judicial consideration by bias, based on suspicion, arising from those extraneous matters or from any other cause whatsoever but if it has affected the assumption or exercise of jurisdiction, as envisaged above, it will be a jurisdictional error for purposes of the above Article. There is no exhaustive list of jurisdictional errors, but case law has identified such an error exists when a decision- maker has: identified a wrong issue; asked a wrong question; ignored relevant material; relied on irrelevant material; failed to observe a requirement of procedural fairness; made a decision involving fraud; made a decision in bad faith; made a decision without evidence; applied a policy inflexibly.

Manish Aggarwal Vs Sukhdev Singh -S 100 CPC - Second Appeal - Punjab Courts Act

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100- Punjab Courts Act - Section 41 - In the State of Punjab,  it is not necessary for the Second Appellate  Court to formulate ‘substantial question of law’ before it decides a case.  Nevertheless, it does not mean that the court can appreciate the facts as well as law in its Second Appeal jurisdiction as can be done by a First Appellate Court. Undoubtedly, the powers are not as limited as that of other Courts in Second Appeal, where Section 100 CPC is applicable, but still, it goes with certain limitations- It can reappreciate the facts and the evidence in case the findings of the trial court and  the   First Appellate Court are perverse. (Para 10-12)

H Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar 2025 INSC 121 - Ss 96,100 CPC - S 52 TP Act -Leave To Appeal

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - 96 and 100 - A stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the court that he falls within the category of an aggrieved person- It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the court - A person aggrieved, to file an appeal, must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned - The expression “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury- It would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment -Ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Order XXII Rule 10 CPC ; Transfer of Property Act - Section 52 - A lis pendens transferee though not brought on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, is entitled to seek leave to appeal against the final decree passed against this transferor, the defendant in the suit. i. First, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under Order I Rule 10 CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, as a general principle; ii. a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right; iii. Thirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party; iv. Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record; v. Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record; vi. Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented; vii. Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96,100 and Order XXII Rule 10 - A lis pendens transferee though not brought on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, is entitled to seek leave to appeal against the final decree passed against this transferor, the defendant in the suit. However, whether to grant such leave or not is within the discretion of the court and such discretion should be exercised judiciously in the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 56)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 1546 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC - While deciding an application under Section 146 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, the Court is not require to go in the controversy as to whether person sought to be impleaded as party in the suit is either necessary or proper party. If the person sought to be impleaded as party is legal representative of a party to the suit, it is sufficient for the Court to order impleadment/substitution of such person. (Para 55)

Mohammad Sadik Mohammad Kasam vs Ravindra Singh Arun Singh Keer - CPC - Decree - Execution

Civil Suits - Decree- The judgment debtor cannot be dispossessed from an area not covered by the decree and the decree holder cannot be granted more than what was adjudicated. (Para 6)

Central Bank Of India vs Prabha Jain 2025 INSC 95 - Ss 17,34 SARFAESI Act - Order VII Rule 11 , Section 9 CPC

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII, Rule 11 - There cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint -Even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected- If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view that Relief B is barred by law, the civil court must not make any observations to the effect that relief B is barred by law and must leave that issue undecided in an Order VII, Rule 11 application. This is because if the civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against relief B. (Para 24-25)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 9- The bar of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred. Such a provision requires strict interpretation - Court would lean in favour of construction which would uphold the retention of the civil court's jurisdiction. (Para 43)

U. Sudheera Vs C. Yashoda 2025 INSC 80 - S 100 CPC - Second Appeal - Interim Order

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal -High Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with the second appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law as required to be framed under Section 100 CPC; and it cannot grant an interim order, without framing substantial question of law. (Para 10.2) 

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - The High Court cannot use its inherent power under Section 151 in violation of the express mandates in other provisions of the Code. (Para 10.3)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - High Court can proceed to hear a Second Appeal only if the case involves a substantial question of law, implying that when the appeal is taken up for admission, it must satisfy itself that a substantial question of law is involved. Thereafter, the High Court must frame such question and direct the parties to submit their arguments on such question. The scheme of the Code also enables the High Court to hear the parties on any other substantial question of law, not framed by it at the first hearing, but during the course of hearing for the reasons to be recorded. Again, if the court is not satisfied at the first hearing that the case does not involve a substantial question of law, it cannot proceed further. Once such additional question of law is framed during the course of hearing, the parties must be given opportunity to submit their arguments on the other substantial question of law(s) -In some High Courts, there is a practice to order Notice of Motion, whereby even before an appeal is admitted, an opportunity is granted to the respondents therein to contest the case. In such a case, it is implied that the High Court is not satisfied prima facie with the case. Such dissatisfaction could be either for a reason that the case does not involve a substantial question of law or for a reason that in the facts of the case, the question of law, though substantial, would not warrant interference. In such cases, though the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 151 of CPC is generally empowered to grant interim orders to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we are of the opinion, the court cannot grant any interim protection to the appellant, unless the substantial question of law is framed under Section 100 (4) or as per the Proviso. On the other hand, if the High Court is prima facie of the view that the substantial question of law involved would not require much time for disposal, the court is bound to frame the substantial question of law at the stage of admission and then order short notice. (Para 10.3)

Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. vs Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited 2025 INSC 73 - Order II Rule 2 CPC

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908- Order II Rule 2 - The object of Order II Rule 2 is to prevent the multiplicity of suits and the provision is founded on the principle that a person shall not be vexed twice for one and the same cause. ii. The mandate of Order II Rule 2 is the inclusion of the whole claim arising in respect of one and the same cause of action, in one suit. It must not be misunderstood to mean that all the different causes of action arising from the same transaction must be included in a single suit. iii. Several definitions have been given to the phrase “cause of action” and it can safely be said to mean – “every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court”. Such a cause of action has no relation whatsoever to the defence that may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief which is prayed for by the plaintiff but refers to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. iv. Similarly, several tests have been laid out to determine the applicability of Order II Rule 2 to a suit. While it is acknowledged that the same heavily depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, it can be said that a correct and reliable test is to determine whether the claim in the new suit is in fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation of the former suit. Additionally, if the evidence required to support the claims is different, then the causes of action can also be considered to be different. Furthermore, it is necessary for the causes of action in the two suits to be identical in substance and not merely technically identical.v. The defendant who takes shelter under the bar imposed by Order II Rule 2(3) must establish that (a) the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based; (b) in respect of that cause of action, the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; and (c) being thus entitled to more than one relief, the plaintiff, without any leave obtained from the Court, omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed. vi. The defendant must also have produced the earlier plaint in evidence in order to establish that there is an identity in the causes of action between both the suits and that there was a deliberate relinquishment of a larger relief on the part of the plaintiff. vii. Since the plea is a technical bar, it has to be established satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of inferential reasoning. (Para 47) - The stage at which the first suit is, would not be a material consideration in deciding the applicability of the bar under Order II Rule 2. What needs to be looked into is whether the cause of action in both suits is one and the same in substance, and whether the plaintiff is agitating the second suit for claiming a relief which was very well available to him at the time of filing the first suit. (Para 51)

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908- Order VII Rule 11(d) and Order II Rule 2 - Before rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), the Courts must ensure that the plaint is read as a whole and its entire averments are looked into. A few lines or passages must not be read in isolation and it is imperative that the pleadings are read as a whole for ascertaining the true import of the averments therein. In performing such a holistic reading, it must be deduced whether the causes of action in both the suits are identical in substance in order to sustain a successful plea under Order II Rule 2. It would be a reductive approach to only cull out the cause of action paragraphs from the respective plaints and decide that they disclose the same cause of action on mere comparative overview. (Para 56)

State Of West Bengal vs PAM Developments Private Limited 2025 INSC 69 - Ss 12, 80 CPC

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 12 & Order XXIII Rule 1 - No suit lies on the same cause of action if the plaintiff has abandoned their claim - This principle is not attracted when the circumstances give rise to a continuous cause of action resulting in a situation where both the amendment applications were filed at different points of time and the former was not adjudicated on merits. - A cause of action is continuing when the act alleged to be wrongful is repeating over a period of time, and consequently extending the limitation period. Cause of action is a bundle of facts giving rise to a legal right. (Para 21-24) When subsequent events form a continuous cause of action for which a fresh suit is not to be filed, as it does not change the nature and character of the Civil Suit. (Para 22)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 80 - When amendment sought amounts to a continuous cause of action and maintains the nature and character of the suit and to that extent, Section 80 of the CPC is irrelevant. (Para 26)

Daliben Valjibhai Prajapati vs Kodarbhai Kachrabhai 2024 INSC 1049 - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Art. 59 Limitation Act

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 ; Limitation Act 1963 - Article 59 - Suit for cancellation of sale deed - In impugned judgment, HC noted that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in cases where the document is registered, the knowledge must be presumed from the date of registration- Allowing appeal, SC observed: The High Court not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself- High Court not justified in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the plaint averments itself.

Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs Sri Bala 2025 INSC 42 - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Article 113 Limitation Act - Rejection Of Plaint

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint -Caselaws discussed (Para 6.1) -Normally the question of limitation would be a mixed question of law and fact. Hence, usually, on a reading of the plaint it is not rejected as being barred by the law of limitation. However, the above is not an inflexible rule. (Para 8.8) - while considering the question of rejection of the plaint, it is the plaint alone which has to be read meaningfully and not any averment in the written statement. It is also necessary sometimes to consider the documents annexed to the plaint for a holistic and comprehensive reading of the plaint in order to decide whether the plaint ought to be rejected or not. (Para 8.2)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 -Order VII Rule 13 - Rejection of earlier suit under Order VII Rule 11 does not bar fresh suit on the same cause of action provided the right of action is not barred by the law of limitation. (Para 7.4)

Punjab National Bank Vs Atin Arora - S 21 CPC - Place Of Suing - Objection

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 21- Objections regarding the place of suing shall not be allowed unless such objection is taken in the Court/tribunal of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity- If such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage.

Daliben Valjibhai Prajapati vs Kodarbhai Kachrabhai 2024 INSC 1049 - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Art. 59 Limitation Act

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 ; Limitation Act 1963 - Article 59 - Suit for cancellation of sale deed - In impugned judgment, HC noted that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in cases where the document is registered, the knowledge must be presumed from the date of registration- Allowing appeal, SC observed: The High Court not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself- High Court not justified in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the plaint averments itself.

Dwarika Prasad (D) Vs Prithvi Raj Singh 2024 INSC 1030 - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Counsel's Fault

Order IX Rule 13 - Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits. Further, we cannot let the party suffer due to negligent or fault committed by their counsel. (Para 9) The procedure cannot stand in the way of achieving just and fair outcome. (Para 12)

Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust vs Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle 2024 INSC 1025 - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection Of Plaint

Order VII Rule 11 - When an application to reject the plaint is filed, the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed therewith alone are germane. The averments in the application can be taken into account only to consider whether the case falls within any of the sub-rules of Order VII Rule 11 by considering the averments in the plaint. The Court cannot look into the written statement or the documents filed by the defendants. The Civil Courts including this Court cannot go into the rival contentions at that stage. (Para 12) - Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question of rejecting the plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record. However, in cases like this, where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the trial Court. The spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is only for the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be a clear abuse of process. The Courts by being reluctant only cause more harm to the defendants by forcing them to undergo the ordeal of leading evidence. (Para 26) 

Order XXIII Rule 3A - The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC is applicable to third parties as well and the only remedy available to them would be to approach the same court. (Para 25)

Abdul Rejak Laskar vs Mafizur Rahman 2024 INSC 1023 - Section 9 CPC - Order XX Rule 18 CPC - Partition Suits

Order XX Rule 18 - Order XX Rule 18 CPC deals with decree in a suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share therein. There are two decrees in a suit for partition; a preliminary decree and a final decree. A preliminary decree determines and declares the rights of parties and shares of all eligible claimants, final decree carries out and effects partition by metes and bounds of the property on the basis of preliminary decree. (Para 43) Decree passed under sub rule (1) of Rule 18 is not described as preliminary and the decree under sub-rule (2) is declared as preliminary, there is no real difference between the two inasmuch as under both the provisions, the court determines and declares the rights of parties and under both the sub rules, partition, separation or division by metes and bounds has to be effected thereafter. Whereas, under sub rule (1), Collector effects partition, under sub rule (2), it is Commissioner appointed by the court who undertakes the said exercise.(Para 46) Difference between Final and Preliminary Decree -A final decree is one which completely disposes of the suit and finally settles all the questions in controversy between the parties and nothing further remains to be decided thereafter. A preliminary decree in a partition suit merely determines and declares the rights of the parties in the properties and the extent to which they are entitled. It is the final decree which ultimately divides the properties by metes and bounds and awards separate possession of the properties to the claimants. The function of the final decree is to restate and apply what the preliminary decree has ordered. A final decree is thus based upon and controlled by preliminary decree. It is settled legal position that final decree proceedings are in continuation of preliminary decree proceedings and there is no executable decree unless the final decree is passed. The final decree does not originate itself, but flows from preliminary decree already passed in a suit determining and declaring the rights and interests of the parties in the suit. The final decree is not a decree in execution of preliminary decree but decree in a suit. It is the final decree which is to be enforced. (Para 49)

Section 4, 9 - Whenever a question arises before the civil court whether its jurisdiction is excluded expressly or by necessary implication, the Court naturally feels inclined to consider whether the remedy afforded by an alternative provision prescribed by any special statute is sufficient or adequate. In cases where exclusion of the civil court's jurisdiction is expressly provided for, the consideration as to the scheme of the statute in question and the adequacy or sufficiency of the remedy provided for by it may be relevant but cannot be decisive. Where exclusion is pleaded as a matter of necessary implication such consideration would be very important and in conceivable circumstances might become even decisive. (Para 29) when anything in the CPC is in conflict with anything in the special or local law or with any special jurisdiction or power conferred or in the special form of procedure prescribed by or under any other law, the Code will not (in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary) prevail so as to override such inconsistent provisions. When there is no conflict between the special or local law and the Code, the Code will apply. (Para 34)

Section 54- Section 54 deals with a case in which a civil court can pass a decree but cannot itself execute it. The execution has to be effected by the Collector. Civil courts have under this Section, jurisdiction to try and decide suits for partition or separate possession of share of estates assessed to payment of revenue to Government but have no power to execute decree passed in such suits. The decree that may be passed by the civil court would declare the rights of the several parties interested in the property, but the decree should direct the actual partition to be made by the Collector or any officer subordinate to him authorized on that behalf.

Mallavva vs Kalsammanavara Kalamma 2024 INSC 1021 -Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment Of Pleadings - Appellate Stage

Order VI Rule 17 – A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost -When there are several reliefs claimed in a suit, the limitation period would be that of the main relief, the limitation for ancillary relief being ignored - In a suit for declaration with a further relief, the limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief. In fact, a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists. When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit. The principle is that the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsist. (Para 23-32)

Jami Venkata Suryaprabha Vs Tarini Prasad Nayak 2024 INSC 1001 - Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC - Right To Begin

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XVIII Rule 1 - As a general rule, according to the procedural law, it is the plaintiff who has to prove his claim by positive proof, for the court has to see whether there is a proof of claim before it needs to enquire, as to the truth or otherwise of the defence. It is open to the plaintiff to say that although he has the right to begin, yet he may rest content with relying upon the averments made in the written statement. Yet evidence need not always be led by the party who has the right to begin and on whom lies the burden of proof; it is open to him to sustain the onus by facts which he may elicit in cross examination of the other party or his witnesses. In order to come to the conclusion, concerning on whom the legal burden of proof rests, in addition to the substantive law, the pleadings of the parties coupled with documents that they produced & the admissions, if any concerning such documents have to be taken into account. (Para 11) Where the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff but contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, it is the defendant who gets the right to begin. (Para 16) Order XVIII Rule 1 indeed provides for plaintiff's right to begin the evidence but not the court's obligation to ask the plaintiffs to begin first. There is no impediment for the court to call upon either party to lead evidence first, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the issues framed. Neither party can insist that the other one should be asked to lead it first. It all depends upon what the Court deems proper in the circumstances. Where it finds that defendant's plea strikes of the root of the case, there would be no hitch in asking him/her to prove such plea first which can lead to disposal of the case. There can be no watertight compartmentalisation in matters of justice and all rules of procedure are designed and directed to achieve and secure ends of justice. (Para 18)

Jaichand (D) vs Sahnulal 2024 INSC 996 - S 100 CPC - Second Appeal - Substantial Question Of Law

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100- In the Second Appeal, the High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law and not mere question of law. Under Section 100, C.P.C., the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence - High Court in the Second Appeal can interfere with the findings of the trial Court on the ground of failure on the part of the trial as well as the first appellate Court, as the case may be, when such findings are either recorded without proper construction of the documents or failure to follow the decisions of this Court and acted on assumption not supported by evidence. Under Section 103, C.P.C, the High Court has got power to determine the issue of fact.

Navratan Lal Sharma vs Radha Mohan Sharma 2024 INSC 970 - Order XXIII Rule 3,3A CPC - Recall Application

Order XXIII Rule 3 & 3A - Only the court that entertains the petition of compromise can determine its legality, at the time of recording the compromise or when it is questioned by way of a recall application. No other remedy is available to the party who is aggrieved by the compromise decree as an appeal and fresh suit are not maintainable under the CPC- when there is a statutory remedy available to a litigant, there is no question of a court granting liberty to avail of such remedy as it remains open to the party to work out his remedies in accordance with law.

Jayanandan vs Suresh Kumar 2024 INSC 956 - Amendment Of Written Statement

Summary: Allowing appeal, SC observed: A decree granted by the Trial Court could not have been set aside merely because there was an amendment to the Written Statement made by the first defendant and in the absence of any evidence being let in support of the claim made- any averment made in a plaint or Written Statement must be supported by evidence.

Rohit Kochhar Vs Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. 2024 INSC 920 - S 16 CPC - S 22 Specific Relief Act

Section 16(d) - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 22 -Absence of a specific prayer seeking transfer of possession would not have any bearing on the character of the suit, which is one covered by Section 16(d) of the CPC. (Para 33)

Section 16 Proviso - The proviso to Section 16 would be applicable to a case where the relief sought by plaintiff can be obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant, that is, the defendant has not to go out of the jurisdiction of the court at all for the purpose of the grant of relief. (Para 21)

Section 16 -Actions against res or property should be brought in the forum where such res is situate. A court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal with and decide the rights or interests in such property - A court has no jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an effective judgment. (Para 16)

Shivaji vs Parwatibai 2024 INSC 917 - CPC - Second Appeal

Section 100 - Second appeal decided by High Court even without giving notice to the appellant herein- Questions of law were framed during the dictation of the order and the appellant herein did not have an opportunity of being heard- Practice deprecated.

Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs Harish Ambalal Choksi 2024 INSC 913- CPC -TP Act- Interim Injunction - Lis Pendens

Order XXXIX Rule 1 -Transfer Of Property Act 1882 - Section 52 -Notwithstanding the Rule of lis pendens in Section 52 of the T. P. Act, there can be occasion for the grant of injunction restraining pendente lite transfers in a fit and proper case- if the doctrine of lis pendens as enacted in Section 52 of the T. P. Act was regarded to have provided all the panacea against pendente lite transfers, the Legislature would not have provided in Rule 1 for interim injunction restraining the transfer of suit property. (Para 45)

Order 43 -An appellate court, even while deciding an appeal against a discretionary order granting an interim injunction, has to: a. Examine whether the discretion has been properly exercised, i.e. examine whether the discretion exercised is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the principles of law; and b. In addition to the above, an appellate court may in a given case have to adjudicate on facts even in such discretionary orders. .The appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the well settled principles governing the scope of jurisdiction of appellate court under Order 43 of the CPC which have been reiterated in various other decisions of this Court. The appellate court should not assume unlimited jurisdiction and should guide its powers within the contours laid down in the Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd- Perversity - stringent. The emphasis is now more on perversity rather than a mere error of fact or law in the order granting injunction pending the final adjudication of the suit- The wrong finding should stem out on a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. Safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man’s inference on the facts. To him, if the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no perversity. If not, the finding is perverse. Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity. (Para 21-32,37)

Order XXXIX Rule 1 -Interim Injunction - It would not be appropriate for any court to hold a mini-trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction- The burden is on the plaintiff, by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise, to prove that there is “a prima facie case” in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition precedent for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non- interference by the court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. The third condition also is that “the balance of convenience” must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus, the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit. (Para 34)

Nitin Mahadeo Jawale vs Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke 2024 INSC 902 - Delay Condonation - Written Statement

Written Statement - Delay of 4½ years in filing the written statement- In this case, High Court allowed the petition filed by the original plaintiff and set aside the order passed by Trial Court condoning the delay - Dismissing SLP, SC observed: Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance-The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.

R. Kandasamy (D) vs T.R.K. Sarawathy 2024 INSC 884 - Specific Performance Suit

Section 9 – Order VII Rule 1 -A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends assumption or refusal to assume jurisdiction by a court, tribunal or an authority-An issue of maintainability of a suit strikes at the root of the proceedings initiated by filing of the plaint as per requirements of Order VII Rule 1, CPC. If a suit is barred by law, the trial court has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain and try it. However, even though a given case might not attract the bar envisaged by section 9, CPC, it is obligatory for a trial court seized of a suit to inquire and ascertain whether the jurisdictional fact does, in fact, exist to enable it (the trial ourt) to proceed to trial and consider granting relief to the plaintiff as claimed. No higher court, much less the Supreme Court, should feel constrained to interfere with a decree granting relief on the specious ground that the parties were not put specifically on notice in respect of a particular line of attack/defence on which success/failure of the suit depends, more particularly an issue touching the authority of the trial court to grant relief if the ‘jurisdictional fact’ imperative for granting relief had not been satisfied. It is fundamental that assumption of jurisdiction/refusal to assume jurisdiction would depend on existence of the jurisdictional fact. Irrespective of whether the parties have raised the contention, it is for the trial court to satisfy itself that adequate evidence has been led and all facts including the jurisdictional fact stand proved for relief to be granted and the suit to succeed. This is a duty the trial court has to discharge in its pursuit for rendering substantive justice to the parties, irrespective of whether any party to the lis has raised or not. If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, at the time of settling the issues, notice of the parties must be invited to the trial court’s prima facie opinion of non-existent jurisdictional fact touching its jurisdiction. However, failure to determine the jurisdictional fact, or erroneously determining it leading to conferment of jurisdiction, would amount to wrongful assumption of jurisdiction and the resultant order liable to be branded as ultra vires and bad- Any failure or omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on maintainability of a suit touching jurisdictional fact by itself cannot trim the powers of the higher court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for grant of relief as claimed, provided no new facts were required to be pleaded and no new evidence led. (Para 44-47)

Ramachandra Reddy (D) vs Ramulu Ammal (D) 2024 INSC 868 - Contract Act - Consideration - Settlement Deed- S 100 CPC - Second Appeal

Section 100 - Second Appeal - A substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for the maintainability of a second appeal, shall be so, if:- (a) Not previously settled by law of land or a binding precedent. b) Material bearing on the decision of case; and (c) New point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, it will depend on facts of each case. (Para 16.3)

HPCL Bio -Fuels Ltd. vs Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad 2024 INSC 851 - Section 11 Arbitration Act - Order 23 Rule 1 CPC - Section 5, 14 Limitation Act

Order 23 Rule 1- Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996- Section 11 -An application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is not a suit and hence will not be governed stricto-sensu by Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC. However, the principles underlying Order 23 Rule 1 can be extended to applications for appointment of arbitrator - While applying the principles of Order 23 Rule 1 to applications under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is that it will act as a bar to only those applications which are filed subsequent to the withdrawal of a previous Section 11(6) application filed on the basis of the same cause of action. The extension of the aforesaid principle cannot be construed to mean that it bars invocation of the same arbitration clause on more than one occasion. It is possible that certain claims or disputes may arise between the parties after a tribunal has already been appointed in furtherance of an application under Section 11(6). In such a scenario, a party cannot be precluded from invoking the arbitration clause only on the ground that it had previously invoked the same arbitration clause. If the cause of action for invoking subsequent arbitration has arisen after the invocation of the first arbitration, then the application for appointment of arbitrator cannot be rejected on the ground of multiplicity alone.

Order 23 Rule 1 -Distinction between “abandonment” of a suit and “withdrawal” from a suit with permission Page 27 of 79 to file a fresh suit and provides for – first, abandonment of suit or a part of claim; and secondly, withdrawal from suit or part of claim with the leave of the court. Abandonment of suit or a part of claim against all or any of the defendants is an absolute and unqualified right of a plaintiff and the court has no power to preclude the plaintiff from abandoning the suit or direct him to proceed with it. Sub-rule (1) of Order 23 Rule 1 embodies this principle. However, if the plaintiff abandons the suit or part of claim, then he is precluded from instituting a fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of claim. Upon abandoning the suit or part of claim, the plaintiff also becomes liable to pay such costs as may be imposed by the Court. This is specified under sub-rule (4) of Order 23 Rule 1. 40. However, if the plaintiff desires to withdraw from a suit or part of a claim with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same subject matter or part of the claim, then he must obtain the permission of the court under sub-rule (3) of Order 23 Rule 1. The failure to obtain such permission would preclude the plaintiff from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim, and also to any costs that may be imposed by the court.

Joginder Singh (D) vs Virinderjit Singh Gill (D) 2024 INSC 814 – S 47 CPC – Execution

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 47- Order XI – Court cannot ‘go behind’ a decree- if a decree is passed by a competent court after due adjudication of merits, it operates as re judicata. If the same is nullity, its validity can be questioned at any stage- The executing court is to determine all questions inter se the parties to the decree- An executing court is to execute the decree as it stands and cannot modify its terms- A decree passed by a Court not having the jurisdiction to do so, does not ipso facto, render it illegal. The recourse is for the aggrieved to have it set aside as per law. If they fail to do so, they shall be bound thereby.- Execution petition dismissed for default of the decree-holder does not operate as res judicata qua “further execution of the decree.”-In scenarios where a compromise decree is entered into between the parties, the question to be asked is whether the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree is the one to have recorded the compromise. (Para 11-12)

Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat 2024 INSC 801 – Judgment Pronouncement – Reasons To Follow Practice

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XX – Practice to pronounce the operative part with the outcome and to provide the reasons later in detailed final judgments- It would be prudent to leave it to the learned Judges to pick any one of the three options [(i) dictation of the judgment in open court, (ii) reserving the judgment and pronouncing it on a future day, or (iii) pronouncing the operative part and the outcome, i.e., “dismissed” or “allowed” or “disposed of”, while simultaneously expressing that reasons would follow in a detailed final judgment supporting such outcome]- It would be in the interest of justice if any learned Judge, who prefers the third option (supra), makes the reasons available in the public domain, preferably within 2 (two) days thereof but, in any case, not beyond 5 (five) days to eliminate any kind of suspicion in the mind of the party losing the legal battle. If the pressure of work is such that in the assessment of the learned Judge the reasons in support of the final judgment cannot be made available, without fail, in 5 (five) days, it would be a better option to reserve the judgment. Also, if the ultimate order would have the effect of changing the status of the parties or the subject matter of the lis, it would always be advisable to stick to the course envisaged in Order XX.

Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India vs Delhi International Airport Ltd. 2024 INSC 791 – Adjudicatory Authorities

Order 1 Rule 10- A necessary party is defined as someone who is indispensable to the suit and without whom the suit cannot effectively proceed. A proper party, on the other hand, is a party who has an interest in the adjudication of the suit though they may not be a person in whose favour or against whom a decree ought to be made- A party would not become a necessary party merely because she has an interest in the correct solution of the question involved. She would be a necessary party only when she would be bound by the result of the action and has a direct or a legal interest in the proceeding. (Para 32)

Renjith KG vs Sheeba 2024 INSC 773 – Order XXI Rule 99 CPC – Pendent Lite Transferee -Limitation For Execution Of Partition Decree

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXI Rule 99– “Any person” not a party to the suit or in other words a stranger to the suit can seek redelivery, after he has been dispossessed. The term “Stranger” would cover within its ambit, a pendent lite transferee, who has not been impleaded- The difference between the rights of a decree holder qua a third party to the suit and the right of a third party after being dispossessed- Referred to Sriram Housing Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, (2022) 15 SCC 176 – The pendent lite purchaser has every right to defend his right, title, interest and possession – Referred to Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind, (2024) 7 SCC 524 : [2024] 7 S.C.R. 668 : 2024 INSC 510

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXI Rule 99– Once an application under Order 21 Rule 99 is filed, it is incumbent upon the Trial Court to consider all the rival claims including the right title and interest of the parties under Order 21 Rule 101 which bars a separate suit by mandating the execution court to decide the dispute-

Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs Suman Agarwal (Bindal) 2024 INSC 726 -Order VI Rule 17 CPC- Amendment Of Pleadings

Code Of Civil Procedure,1908- Order VI Rule 17 - (a) amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage- (b) amendment must be necessary to determine the “real question of controversy” “inter se parties”- (c) if such amendment is sought to be brought after commencement of trial the Court must, in allowing the same come to a conclusion that in spite of best efforts on the part of the party to the suit, the same could not have been brought before the point of time, when it was actually brought - Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such power.- (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if – (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit- (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are – (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach- ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.

Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra vs Karnani Properties Ltd. 2024 INSC 719- Order XII Rule 6 CPC – West Bengal Tenancy Premises Act

Code Of Civil Procedure,1908- Order XII Rule 6 -Order XII Rule 6 is an enabling provision conferring wide discretionary powers on the courts which cannot be claimed by any party as a matter of right- unless there is a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and unconditional admission, courts should not exercise their discretion under the Rule because judgment on admissions is without a trial which may even preclude a party to challenge the matter on merits in the court of appeal. The provision of law, which is meant for the expeditious disposal of appropriate cases, should therefore be cautiously exercised and it should never come in the way of any defendant denying him the valuable right of contesting the claim -There cannot be an admission against law. Whether a particular statement amounts to an “admission” will depend on the fact of each case. (Para 4-6)

OPG Power Generation Private Limited vs Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Private Limited 2024 INSC 711- S 34 Arbitration Act – Limitation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order II Rule 3 -Limitation Act- The plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant- Therefore, when CPC, in certain circumstances, permits combining in one action two or more distinct and independent claims, it is quite possible that one of the claims may be barred by limitation and the other may be within time. (Para 39)

Counter claim - A counterclaim is a claim made by a defendant in a suit against the plaintiff. It is a claim, independent of and separable from the plaintiff’s claim, which can be enforced by a cross action. Counterclaim preferred by the defendant in a suit is a cross suit and even if the suit is dismissed, counterclaim shall remain alive for adjudication. The purpose of the scheme relating to counterclaim is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Para 120)- A counterclaim is like a cross suit, or a separate suit, and the limitation of a counterclaim is to be counted from the date of accrual of the cause of action which it seeks to espouse. As a logical corollary thereof, it is quite possible that even though a suit or a claim is within the period of limitation, the counterclaim may well be barred by limitation, if the cause of action espoused therein accrued beyond the prescribed period of limitation. (Para 124)

Choudappa vs Choudappa (D) 2024 INSC 691 -Order XX Rule 12 CPC – Mesne Profits

Order XX Rule 12 - Analogy with regard to the preparation of the final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree for partition can very well be applied to the cases where a decree is passed with a direction to hold an inquiry with regard to determination of mesne profits- Such an inquiry is nothing but a continuation of the suit and is in the nature of preparation of the final decree and as such, it cannot be said that any application moved as a reminder for completing the inquiry is barred by limitation or is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay or laches.

Kimneo Haokip Hangshing vs Kenn Raikhan 2024 INSC 689 – RP Act – Rejection Of Election Petition

Representation of the People Act, 1951- Section 83 - Code Of Civil Procedure,1908- Order VII Rule 11- Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions- if substantial compliance in terms of furnishing all that is required under the law has been given, the petition cannot be summarily dismissed. (Para 7-11)

Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra vs Baijnath Choubey & Company – 2024 INSC 688- S 100 CPC – Second Appeal

Code of Civil Procedure,1908- Section 100 - Second Appeal -High Courts are required to hear second appeals under Section 100 of the CPC only on the satisfaction that there exists a substantial question of law and the appeal has to be heard on the question so formulated -[In this case, while allowing appeal against judgment of HC in second appeal, SC observed:There is no question framed about lack of evidence, sub-letting or incorrect appreciation of facts by the learned First Appellate Court, on which the final finding of the High Court is returned. Furthermore, there is no discussion by the High Court, as to the reasons required for the departure from the substantial questions of law framed at the stage of admission or in the impugned order. The impugned judgment overturns the finding of fact of the First Appellate Court qua sub-letting without framing a substantial question of law in this regard at any stage. Therefore, in view of the above exposition of law and the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground.]

Vaibhav Jain vs Hindustan Motors Pvt Ltd. 2024 INSC 652 – Motor Vehicles Act

Code Of Civil Procedure,1908- Order 41 Rule 33 -For exercise of the power under Rule 33 of Order 41 CPC the overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice- and one of the limitations on exercise of the power is that that part of the decree which essentially ought to have been appealed against, or objected to, by a party and which that party has permitted to achieve a finality cannot be reversed to the advantage of such party - Referred to Banarasi & Ors. V. Ram Phal (2003) 9 SCC 606. (Para 29-32)

Rama Kt Barman (D) vs Md Mahim Ali 2024 INSC 644 – CPC – Second Appeal

Code of Civil Procedure,1908- Section 100 & Order XLI- A Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of the parties, and the appellate court is supposed to decide the issues involved in the suit based on the pleadings of the parties. (Para 14)

Nek Pal vs Nagar Palika Parishad 2024 INSC 574 – S 100 CPC – Second Appeal

Code Of Civil Procedure,1908- Section 100- Unless substantial questions of law are formulated at the time of admission of the appeal or any time subsequent thereto, a second appeal cannot be finally heard. The reason is that a second appeal can be finally heard only on a substantial question of law formulated earlier. In fact, the act of finally hearing a second appeal without framing any substantial question of law is itself illegal. (Para 3)

S Tirupathi Rao vs M Lingamaiah 2024 INSC 544 – CPC – Review – Contempt Of Court

Code Of Civil Procedure,1908- Section 114 and Order XLVII - Review - The exercise of review jurisdiction is not an inherent power given to the court- the power to review has to be specifically conferred by law - The provisions contained in section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC relating to review of an order or decree are mandatory in nature and any petition for review not satisfying the rigours therein cannot be entertained ex debito justitiae, by a court of law. (Para 12) - The general impression is that more the number of grounds, less the likelihood of existence of a case for review. To succeed in a motion for review, viewed through the prism of ‘error apparent on the face of the record’, it does neither require long-drawn arguments nor an elaborate process of reasoning as these may be required, in a given case, when exercising the power of merit review. An error apparent on the face of the record has to be self-evident. Where, conceivably, two opinions can be formed in a given set of facts and circumstances and one opinion of the two has been formed, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 25) An applicant seeking review on the basis of discovery of new evidence has to demonstrate: first, that there has been discovery of new evidence, of which he had no prior knowledge or that it could not be produced at the time the decree was passed or the order made despite due diligence- and secondly, that the new evidence is material to the order/decree being reviewed in the sense that if the evidence were produced in court when the decree was passed or the order made, the decision of the court would have been otherwise. Ultimately, it is for the court to decide whether a review sought for by an applicant, if granted, would prevent abuse of the process of law and/or miscarriage of justice. (Para 16)

Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel vs S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited 2024 INSC 542 – CPC – Written Statement – Consumer Protection Act

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Even if the defendant/opposite party failed to file a written statement and, in that matter, even if forfeiture of the right to file written statement has occasioned it would not disentitle that party from participating in the further proceedings, without filing a written statement and in such circumstances, the said party would also be having the right to cross-examine the witness(es), if any, of the plaintiff/complainant. (Para 15)

Amro Devi vs Julfi Ram (D) 2024 INSC 527 – Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Lis Pendens

Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order XXIII Rule 3- For a valid compromise in a suit there has to be a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties which would then require it to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. In the absence of any document in writing, the question of the parties signing it does not arise. Even the question of proving such document to the satisfaction of the Court to be lawful, also did not arise- Mere statements of the parties before court about such said compromise, cannot satisfy the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. (Para 20-23)

Al-Can Export Pvt Ltd. vs Prestige HM Polycontainers Ltd. 2024 INSC 500 – Writ Jurisdiction – CPC

Constitution Of India,1950- Article 226- Code Of Civil Procedure,1908 - Section 141 and Order XXI Rule 90- The provisions of the CPC do not apply to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except some of the principles enshrined therein like res judicata, delay and laches, addition of parties, matters which have not been specifically dealt with by the writ rules framed by the respective High Court - The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders. Such power can neither be controlled nor affected by the provisions of Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC. It would not be correct to say that the terms of Order XXI Rule 90 should be mandatorily complied with while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution stand on a different footing when compared to the proceedings in suits or appeals arising therefrom. (Para 48-49)

GM Shahul Hameed vs Jayanthi R Hegde 2024 INSC 493 – S 151 CPC – Insufficient Stamping

Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 151- Whether upon admission of an instrument in evidence and its marking as an exhibit by a court (despite the instrument being chargeable to duty but is insufficiently stamped), such a process can be recalled by the court in exercise of inherent powers saved by section 151 CPC? Trial Court did have the authority to revisit and recall the process of admission and marking of the instrument, not in the sense of exercising a power of review under section 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC but in exercise of its inherent power saved by section 151 thereof - (Para 10) - The legislature has reposed responsibility on the courts and trusted them to ensure that requisite stamp duty, along with penalty, is duly paid if an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument is placed before it for admission in support of the case of a party. It is incumbent upon the courts to uphold the sanctity of the legal framework governing stamp duty, as the same are crucial for the authenticity and enforceability of instruments. Allowing an instrument with insufficient stamp duty to pass unchallenged, merely due to technicalities, would undermine the legislative intent and the fiscal interests of the state. The courts ought to ensure that compliance with all substantive and procedural requirements of a statute akin to the 1957 Act are adhered to by the interested parties. This duty of the court is paramount, and any deviation would set a detrimental precedent, eroding the integrity of the legal system. Thus, the court must vigilantly prevent any circumvention of these legal obligations, ensuring due compliance and strict adherence for upholding the rule of law. (Para 21)

Har Narayan Tewari (D) vs Cantonment Board 2024 INSC 467 – S 11 CPC – Res Judicata – Co-Defendants

Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 11- Res Judicata-The principle of res judicata is applicable not only between the plaintiff and the defendants but also between the co-defendants. In applying the principle of res judicata between the co-defendants, primarily three conditions are necessary to be fulfilled, namely, (i) there must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants- (ii) there is necessity to decide the said conflict in order to give relief to plaintiff- and (iii) there is final decision adjudicating the said conflict. Once all these conditions are satisfied, the principle of res judicata can be applied inter se the codefendants. (Para 23)

Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 11- Res Judicata- The general policy behind the principle of res judicata as enshrined under Section 11 CPC is to avoid parties to litigate on the same issue which has already been adjudicated upon and settled. This is in consonance with the public policy so as to bring to an end the conflict of interest on the same issue between the same parties. One of the basic essential ingredients for applying the principle of res judicata, as stated earlier also, is that the matter which is directly and substantially in issue in the previous litigation ought not to be permitted to be raised and adjudicated upon in the subsequent suit. (Para 23)

Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya vs Siddiq Ismail Sindhi 2024 INSC 457 -CPC – Indigent Appeal

Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order XXXIII -(i) It is an enabling provision for filing of a suit by an indigent person without paying the court fee at the initial stage. (ii) If the suit is decreed for the plaintiff, the court fee would be calculated as if the plaintiff had not originally filed the suit as an indigent person. The said amount is recoverable by the State in accordance with who may ordered to pay the same in the decree. (iii) Even when a suit is dismissed, the court fee shall be recoverable by the State in the form of first charge on the subject-matter of the suit- there is only a provision for the deferred payment of the court fees and this benevolent provision is intended to help the poor litigants who are unable to pay the requisite court fee to file a suit because of their poverty- Referred to Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction (2001) 5 SCC 22- They exemplify the cherished principle that lack of monetary capability does not preclude a person from knocking on the doors of the Court to seek vindication of his rights. (Para 10-11)

Summary:Whether person who is entitled to receive compensation by way of a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be said to have given up its status as an ‘indigent person’, by virtue of the amount slated to be received. In other words, whether a person being an award holder, of monetary compensation without actual receipt thereof, would be disentitled from filing an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent? - Allowing appeal, SC permitted the appellant to file appeal against MACT order as an indigent person observing thus: She had not yet received the money and, therefore, at the time of filing the appeal she was arguably indigent- and second, that the statutory requirement under the C.P.C., as described above, was not met – the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside.

Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi vs KL Rathi Steels Limited 2024 INSC 454 – Review Jurisdiction

Section 114 & Order XLVII - No review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based- The subsequent overruling of a decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order XLVII of the CPC

Section 114 & Order XLVII - Review power under section 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence- or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record- or (iii) any other sufficient reason. 40. Insofar as (i) (supra) is concerned, the review petitioner has to show that such evidence (a) was actually available on the date the court made the order/decree, (b) with reasonable care and diligence, it could not be brought by him before the court at the time of the order/decree, (c) it was relevant and material for a decision, and (d) by reason of its absence, a miscarriage of justice has been caused in the sense that had it been produced and considered by the court, the ultimate decision would have been otherwise- Regarding (ii) (supra), the review petitioner has to satisfy the court that the mistake or error committed by it is self-evident and such mistake or error can be pointed out without any long-drawn process of reasoning- and, if such mistake or error is not corrected and is permitted to stand, the same will lead to a failure of justice. There cannot be a fit-inall definition of “mistake or error apparent on the face of the record” and it has been considered prudent by the courts to determine whether any mistake or error does exist considering the facts of each individual case coming before it- With regard to (iii) (supra), we can do no better than refer to the traditional view in Chhajju Ram (supra), a decision of a Bench of seven Law Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was held there that the words “any other sufficient reason” means “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously”, meaning thereby (i) and (ii) (supra). (Para 39-42)

Section 151- Inherent powers of the court under section 151, CPC cannot be invoked if there exists a remedy made available by the CPC itself. (Para 96)

Lehna Singh (D) vs Gurnam Singh (D) 2024 INSC 429 – Punjab Courts Act – Second Appeal

Section 100 - Punjab Courts Act, 1918- Section 41- The provision contained in Section 41 of the Punjab Act, as reproduced above, does not mandate framing of a substantial question of law for entertaining the second appeal. Therefore, a second appeal under Section 41 of Punjab Act can be entertained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court even without framing a substantial question of law - Referred to Pankajakshi (Dead) v. Chandrika (2016) 6 SCC 157. (Para 10)

Section 96- The requirement of exercise of jurisdiction by the First Appellate Court under Section 96 of CPC - Referred to Chintamani Ammal vs. Nandagopal Gounder (2007) 4 SCC 163, Jagannath v. Arulappa (2005) 12 SCC 303, H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (D) (2005) 10 SCC 243- It would be wholly improper to allow first appeal without adverting to the specific findings of the trial court and that the First Appellate Court is required to address all the issues and determine the appeal upon assignment of cogent reasons. (Para 24-25)

Bhikchand vs Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale ((D) 2024 INSC 411 – S 144 CPC – Restitution – Auction Sale

Section 144 -Section 144 CPC statutorily recognises a pre-existing rule of justice, equity and fair play - Even away from Section 144 the court has inherent jurisdiction to order restitution so as to do complete justice between the parties- The factor attracting applicability of restitution is not the act of the court being wrongful or a mistake or error committed by the court- the test is whether on account of an act of the party persuading the court to pass an order held at the end as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining an advantage which it would not have otherwise earned- The obligation for restitution arises automatically on the reversal or modification of the decree and necessarily carries with it the right to restitution of all that has been done under the erroneous decree- and the Court in making restitution is bound to restore the parties, so far as they can be restored to the same position they were in at the time when the Court by its erroneous action had displaced them from- Where the decree holder is himself the auction purchaser, the sale cannot stand, if the decree is subsequently set aside-(Para 11-14) [In this case, the decree passed by the Trial Court was varied by the appeal court - However, in the meantime, the decree was executed by sale of the judgment debtor’s property on in favour of the decree holders-After the decree was varied by the Appellate Court, the appellant/judgment debtor applied for restitution by invoking Section 144 CPC. The Trial Court, Appellate Court and the second Appellate Court rejected the application for restitution inter alia on the ground that the original decree was modified to the extent of interest payable and the judgment debtor not having deposited any amount in the court after the original decree and the property was put in auction, is not entitled to restitution- Allowing appeal, SC held: the appellants’ application under Section 144 CPC is allowed and the sale of the attached properties belonging to the judgment debtor is set aside and the parties are restored back to the position where the execution was positioned before the attachment of the immovable properties of the judgment debtor- Referred to Padanathil Rugmini Ama Vs. P.K. Abdulla (1996) 7 SCC 668.]

Order XXI Rule s 54, 66 - The object of attachment of immovable property in course of execution of decree is for realisation of the decretal amount by way of the sale of the attached property under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC - The sale proclamation should mention the estimated value of the property and such estimated value can also be given under Rule 54 Order XXI CPC. The fact that the Court is also entitled to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property clearly demonstrates that whenever the attached immovable property is to be sold in public auction the value thereof is required to be estimated. In between Rule 54 to Rule 66 of Order XXI CPC, there is no other provision requiring assessment of value of the property to be sold in auction -The provisions contained in Rule 54(1) Order XXI read with Rule 66 of Order XXI CPC wherein it is provided that either whole of the attached property or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree shall be sold in auction. If there is no valuation of the property in the attachment Panchanama and there being no separate provision for valuation of the property put to auction, it is to be understood that the valuation of the property mentioned in attachment Panchanama prepared under Rule 54 can always provide the estimated value of the property otherwise the provisions enabling the court to auction only a part of the property which would be sufficient to satisfy the decree would be unworkable or redundant-When only one of the attached properties was sufficient to satisfy the decree there was no requirement for effecting the sale of the entire attached properties. (Para 20-22) - The court’s power to auction any property or part thereof is not just a discretion but an obligation imposed on the Court and the sale held without 31 examining this aspect and not in conformity with this mandatory requirement would be illegal and without jurisdiction- The execution of a decree by sale of the entire immovable property of the judgment debtor is not to penalise him but the same is provided to grant relief to the decree holder and to confer him the fruits of litigation. However, the right of a decree holder should never be construed to have bestowed upon him a bonanza only because he had obtained a decree for realisation of a certain amount. A decree for realisation of a sum in favour of the plaintiff should not amount to exploitation of the judgment debtor by selling his entire property. (Para 25- 27)

Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 2024 INSC 401 – O XLI R 31 CPC 

Order XLI Rule 31 - The mere omission to frame the points for determination would not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate Court, provided that the first appellate Court recorded its reasons based on the evidence adduced by both parties - Even if the first appellate Court does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the first appeal, it would not prove fatal as long as that Court deals with all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal. Substantial compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC in that regard is sufficient- Referred to G. Amalorpavam and others vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai (2006) 3 SCC 224 and Laliteshwar Prasad Singh vs. S.P. Srivastava (D) (2017) 2 SCC 415. (Para 29-30)

Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs Nahakpam Indrajit Singh 2024 INSC 391 – RP Act- Election Petition – Rejoinder

Representation of Peoples Act, 1951- Section 87(1) – Order VIII Rule 9 - High Court, acting as an Election Tribunal, subject to the provisions of the 1951 Act and the rules made thereunder, is vested with all such powers as are vested in a civil court under the CPC. Therefore, in exercise of its powers under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, it is empowered to grant leave to an election petitioner to file a replication- However, such leave is not to be granted mechanically. The Court before granting leave must consider the averments made in the plaint/election petition, the written statement and the replication. Upon consideration thereof, if the Court feels that to ensure a fair and effective trial of the issues already raised, the plaintiff/election petitioner must get opportunity to explain/clarify the facts newly raised or pleaded in the written statement, it may grant leave upon such terms as it deems fit. Further, while considering grant of leave, the Court must bear in mind that,— (a) a replication is not needed to merely traverse facts pleaded in the written statement- (b) a replication is not a substitute for an amendment- and (c) a new cause of action or plea inconsistent with the plea taken in original petition/plaint is not to be permitted in the replication. (Para 20-21)

Order VI Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 9 - Replication, though not a pleading as per Rule 1 of Order VI, is permissible with the leave of the Court under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, which gives a right to file a reply in defence to set-off or counter-claim set up in the written statement. However, if filing of replication is allowed by the Court, it can be utilised for the purposes of culling out issues. But mere non-filing of a replication would not mean that there has been admission of the facts pleaded in the written statement (see K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini (2009) 1 SCC 354. (Para 16)

Balveer Batra vs New India Assurance Company 2024 INSC 361 - Motor Vehicles Act- Jurisdiction

Section 21- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction in an appeal against an award granting compensation could not be entertained in the absence of consequent failure of justice- Though taking of an objection as to the lack of territorial jurisdiction before the Court of first instance at the earliest opportunity is a condition required to raise that objection before an appellate or revisional Court satisfaction of such condition by itself would not make an award granting compensation a nullity inasmuch as in such cases there would not be inherent lack of jurisdiction in Court in regard to the subject matter. Therefore, in such cases, correction by a Court is open, only if it occasions in failure of justice. The provision thus, reflects the legislative intention that all possible care should be taken to ensure that the time, energy and labour spent by a Court did not go in vain unless there has been a consequent failure of justice - Referred to Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC 43 and Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(2009) 2 SCC 244 (Para 13-14)

Order XIV, Rule 2 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-- The issues regarding territorial jurisdiction ought to be tried as primary issues but when it is evident that the issue could not be decided solely based on the pleadings in the plaint (here claim petition) and when parties are permitted to adduce evidence upon finding that it is a mixed question of law and facts there was absolutely no justification for not pronouncing an award on all the issues framed besides the one pertaining to its territorial jurisdiction. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that when evidence was permitted to be let in, may be for such issues the possibility of reappreciation and consequent reversal of finding(s) of the Tribunal cannot be ruled out. But then, if the award was pronounced not at threshold, but after a very long lapse of time and confining consideration only on the issue of territorial jurisdiction and then, answering the other issues as well against the claimant without examining them on their own merits, but solely because of the negative finding on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, as occurred in the case on hand, it would defeat the very purpose of the benevolent legislation providing for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. (Para 18)

Ayay Ishwar Ghute vs Meher K Patel 2024 INSC 353 – Minutes Of Order – Advocates – CPC – Compromise

Practice and Procedure -"Minutes of Order”- a) The practice of filing “Minutes of Order” prevails in the Bombay High Court. As a courtesy to the Court, the advocates appearing for the parties to the proceedings tender “Minutes of Order” containing what could be recorded by the Court in its order. The object is to assist the Court- b) An order passed in terms of the “Minutes of Order” tendered on record by the advocates representing the parties to the proceedings is not a consent order. It is an order in invitum for all purposes- c) Before tendering the “Minutes of Order” to the Court, the advocates must consider whether an order, if passed by the Court in terms of the “Minutes of Order,” would be lawful. After “Minutes of Order” is tendered before the Court, it is the duty of the Court to decide whether an order passed in terms of the “Minutes of Order” would be lawful. The Court must apply its mind whether the parties who are likely to be affected by an order in terms of the “Minutes of Order” have been impleaded to the proceedings- d) If the Court is of the view that an order made in terms of the “Minutes of Order” tendered by the advocates will not be lawful, the Court should decline to pass an order in terms of the “Minutes of Order”- and e) If the Court finds that all the parties likely to be affected by an order in terms of the “Minutes of Order” are not parties to the proceedings, the Court will be well advised to defer passing of the order till all the necessary parties are impleaded to the proceedings. (Para 20)

Rule 3 of Order XXIII - The Court is duty-bound to look into the legality of the compromise. The Court has the jurisdiction to decline to pass a consent order if the same is tainted with illegality. However, an order passed by the Court in terms of compromise recorded in the consent terms is a consent order which will not bind the persons who were not parties to the consent terms unless they were claiming through any of the parties to the consent terms. (Para 19)

Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) vs Shyam Lal Chauhan 2024 INSC 352 – Order XXII Rule 5 CPC

Order XXII Rule 5 -Proviso to Rule 5 does not say that the Appellate Court can direct the subordinate court to decide the question as to who would be the legal representative, it only provides that the Appellate Court can direct the subordinate court to try the question and return the records to the Appellate Court, along with the evidence and the subordinate court has then to send a report in the form of a reasoned opinion based on evidence recorded, upon which the final decision has to be made ultimately by the Appellate Court, after considering all relevant material. While dealing with the report sent by the subordinate court under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC, the Appellate Court may consider the findings of the subordinate court and then give its reasons before reaching any conclusion. The words ‘the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question’ used in the proviso to Rule 5 gives discretion to the Appellate Court to make its own separate opinion notwithstanding the opinion of the subordinate court. The proviso cannot be construed to be a delegation of the powers of the Appellate Court to substitute the deceased party, but is merely to assist it in ultimately deciding the issue of substitution. Thus, the Appellate Court ‘may’ take into consideration the material referred by the subordinate court under Rule 5 of Order 22, CPC along with the objections, if any, against the report while deciding on the substitution of the appellant. (Para 17)

Order XXII Rule 5 -The only purpose of substitution is the continuation of the case. The substitution as LR in a case by itself will not give any title in favour of the person so substituted. It only confers the right to represent the estate of the deceased in the pending proceedings- Referred to Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, (2008) 8 SCC 521 - Despite the limited purpose of substitution of legal representatives, it has its significance in as much as it gives the right to the substituted legal representatives to contest the claim of the deceased. (Para 10)

Arcadia Shipping Ltd. vs Tata Steel Limited 2024 INSC 333 – Order I Rule 3,7 CPC

Order I Rule 3,7 - Plaintiff may join as a defendant in one suit, all persons against whom, the plaintiff claims the right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of transactions. The claim viz. the defendants can be joint, several or in the alternative. Thus, it is permissible to file one civil suit, even when, separate suits can be brought against such persons, when common questions of law and fact arise. Order I Rule 7 of the Code permits a plaintiff who is in doubt as to the person from whom they are entitled to obtain redress, to join two or more defendants in order that the question as to which of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, can be decided in one suit. (Para 11,12)

Section 20(c)- Section 20(c) of the Code accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to institute a suit within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.10 Every suit is based upon the cause of action, and the situs of the cause of action, even in part, will confer territorial jurisdiction on the court. The expression ‘cause of action’ can be given either a restrictive or wide meaning However, it is judicially read to mean - every fact that the plaintiff should prove to support their right to the judgment. (Para 10)

Civil suit - A question of territorial jurisdiction should ordinarily be decided at the outset rather than being deferred till all matters are resolved. (Para 15)

State Of Telangana vs Mohd. Abdul Qasim(D) 2024 INSC 310 – CPC – Review Jurisdiction- Environment – Forest Act

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 - Mistake or error apparent on the face of record would debar the court from acting as an appellate court in disguise, by indulging in a re-hearing. A decision, however erroneous, can never be a factor for review, but can only be corrected in appeal. Such a mistake or error should be self-evident on the face of record. The error should be grave enough to be identified on a mere cursory look, and an omission so glaring that it requires interference in the form of a review. Being a creature of the statute, there is absolutely no room for a fresh hearing. The court has got no role to involve itself in the process of adjudication for a second time. Instead, it has to merely examine the existence of an apparent mistake or error. Even when two views are possible, the court shall not indulge itself by going into the merits- The material produced, at this stage, should be of such pristine quality which, if taken into consideration, would have the logical effect of reversing the judgment. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 indicates that power of review can be exercised by courts, in three different situations, but these occasions ought to be read in an analogous manner. In other words, they should be read in a manner to mean that a restrictive power has been conferred- Order XLVII Rule 1(c) -A subsequent event per se cannot form the basis of a review- The important matter or evidence produced must have been available at the time when the decree was passed. This is a matter of rule. On a very rare occasion, an exception can be carved out. Such an exception can only be exercised when the said matter or evidence is of unimpeachable quality. It is not only a new matter or evidence that should be taken into consideration, but it should also be an important one- While exercising the said power, the court has to first check the evidentiary value of such discovery, including the circumstances under which it emanated, particularly when it inherently lacks jurisdiction or the evidence cannot be made admissible in law and therefore, is not relevant. In such a circumstance, there is no question of proceeding further in deciding the review application. -The words “as it thinks fit” cannot be interpreted to mean anything beyond what is conferred under Order XLVII Rule 1- Section 114 has to be read along with Order XLVII Rule 1. While they are to be read together, Section 114 is more procedural, whereas Order XLVII Rule 1 is substantially substantive- The words “due diligence”, though one of fact, places onus heavily on the one who seeks a review. It has to be seen from the point of view of a reasonable and prudent man. Though an element of flexibility is given to any evidence or matter on its discovery, it has to be one which was not available to the court 16 earlier. It could not have been produced despite due diligence, meaning thereby that it should have been available and, therefore, in existence at least at the time of passing the decree- The words “for any other sufficient reason” ought to be read in conjunction with the earlier two categories reiterating the scope. Being a judicial discretion, it has to be exercised with circumspection and on rare occasions. It is a power to be exercised by way of an exception, subject to the rigours of the provision- Caselaws discussed (Para 18-25)

Manisha Mahendra Gala vs Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani 2024 INSC 293 – Easements – Power Of Attorney- S 107 CPC

Section 107- Powers of the appellate court vis-à-vis to determine the case finally- to remand the case- to frame issues and refer them for trial- and to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken - The first appellate court is empowered to exercise powers and to perform nearly the same duties as of the courts of original jurisdiction. Therefore, the first appellate court has the power to return findings of fact and law both and in so returning the finding, it can impliedly overturn the findings of the court of first instance if it is against the evidence on record or is otherwise based upon incorrect interpretation of any document or misconstruction of any evidence adduced before the court of first instance.(Para 39)

Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare vs Nanibai (D) 2024 INSC 283 – Second Appeal – S 100 CPC 

Section 100 - Second Appeal - High Court acting in second appellate jurisdiction could not have arrived at a new finding of fact without any foundation being laid therefor. (Para 27)

Karim Uddin Barbhuiya vs Aminul Haque Laskar 2024 INSC 282 – Election Petition – Corrupt Practice

Order VII Rule 11 - Representation of the People’s Act, 1951- Section 81,83,87, 100- Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908- - Non-compliance of the requirement of Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act and the rejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11, CPC - Referred to Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar 2023 SCC Online SC 573 (Para 15)

Acme Papers Ltd. vs Chintaman Developers Pvt Ltd 2024 INSC 248 – Ss 10,15-20, 25 CPC

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 15-20 - Section 20, CPC, which provides that a suit can be initiated where the defendant resides or cause of action arises is a residuary provision only applicable to cases beyond those in Section 15 to 19, CPC.- Referred to Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791. (Para 6)

Section 10,25 -While considering a Transfer Petition under Section 25, CPC regard must be had for Section 10, CPC - Section 10, CPC inter alia mandates that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue between the parties, litigating under the same title, where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. It has been incorporated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in the previously filed suit. - Referred to Gupte Cardiac Care Centre and Hospital v. Olympic Pharma Care (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 756 (Para 7)

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam vs Adani Power Rajasthan 2024 INSC 213 -Maintainability Of Post Disposal Application For Modification & Clarification

Practice and Procedure - Miscellaneous Applications - A post disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments (Para 20)
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 148- The power to extend time beyond that fixed by a Court on a legitimate ground is incorporated in Section 148 of the Code. If the time to do something requires to be extended, it would be within the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to go beyond the maximum period of 30 days prescribed in the aforesaid Section, after sufficient reason is shown. Section 112 of the Code itself provides that nothing contained in the Code shall affect the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 or any other provision of the Constitution. (Para 17)

Order XXIII Rule 1 -Any plaintiff would be entitled to abandon a suit or abandon part of the claim made in the suit at any time after institution of the suit, as provided in Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code - The provision which pertains to a suit would not ipso facto apply to a miscellaneous application invoking inherent powers of this Court, instituted in a set of statutory appeals which stood disposed of. Even if an applicant applies for withdrawal of an application, in exceptional cases, it would be within the jurisdiction of the Court to examine the application and pass appropriate orders. (Para 19)

Thangam vs Navamani Ammal 2024 INSC 164 :: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 146 – CPC – Written Statement – Will

Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 -Deprecated practice of not providing specific para-wise reply to the plaint in the written statement/counter affidavits - In the absence of para-wise reply to the plaint, it becomes a roving inquiry for the Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in the plaint is either admitted or denied in the written statement filed, as there is no specific admission or denial with reference to the allegation in different paras- Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved. This is an exception to the general rule. General rule is that the facts admitted, are not required to be proved -The requirement of Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC are specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. The same would necessarily mean dealing with the allegations in the plaint para-wise. In the absence thereof, the respondent can always try to read one line from one paragraph and another from different paragraph in the written statement to make out his case of denial of the allegations in the plaint resulting in utter confusion - In case, the defendant/respondent wishes to take any preliminary objections, the same can be taken in a separate set of paragraphs specifically so as to enable the plaintiff/petitioner to respond to the same in the replication/rejoinder, if need be. The additional pleadings can also be raised in the written statement, if required. These facts specifically stated in a set of paragraphs will always give an opportunity to the plaintiff/petitioner to respond to the same. This in turn will enable the Court to properly comprehend the pleadings of the parties instead of digging the facts from the various paragraphs of the plaint and the written statement- Referred to Badat and Co. Bombay Vs. East India Trading Co AIR 1964 SC 538 and Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam Vs. Atmaram Kumar (1993) 4 SCC 6. (Para 15)

Vinayak Purushottam Dube (D) vs Jayashree Padamkar Bhat 2024 INSC 159 - Contract Law – Obligations Of Builder – Liability Of LRs

Section 2(11) - the legal representatives of a deceased are liable only to the extent of the estate which they inherit. (Para 23)

Section 50 - any decree which is relatable to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to the hands of the legal representatives and has not been duly disposed of, the same would be liable for execution by a decree holder so as to compel the legal representatives to satisfy the decree. In this context, even a decree for preventive injunction can also be executed against the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor if such a decree is in relation to the property or runs with the property if there is a threat from such legal representatives. (Para 29)

Basavaraj vs Indira 2024 INSC 151 – Amendment Of Pleadings – Consent Decree

Order XXIII Rule 3- (i) appeal is not maintainable against a consent decree- (ii) no separate suit can be filed- (iii) consent decree operates as an estoppel and binding unless it is set aside by the court by an order on an application under the proviso to 10 (2006) 5 SCC 566 Page 8 of 15 Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C.- and (iv) the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree is to approach the Court which recorded the compromise as it was opined to be nothing else but a contract between the parties superimposed with the seal of approval of the Court - Referred to Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through L.R. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) v. Rajinder Singh (2006) 5 SCC 566 (Para 7)

Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC -No application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. When it is not even the pleaded case in the application for amendment that due diligence was there at the time of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed for by way of amendment. All what was pleaded was oversight. The same cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings at the fag end of the trial especially when admittedly the facts were in knowledge of the plaintiffs. (Para 8)

Order VI Rule 17 CPC -When initially, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession. By way of amendment, relief of declaration of the compromise decree being null and void was also sought. The same would certainly change the nature of the suit, which may be impermissible - An application for amendment may be rejected if it seeks to introduce totally different, new and inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of the suit. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. prevents an application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue. The burden is on the party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not be sought earlier-One of the important factor is as to whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other side or it fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case or a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred on the date of filing the application.- M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) (2019) 4 SCC 3321 (Para 9-11)

Vasantha (D) vs Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (D) 2024 INSC 109

Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of a plaint can be made at any stage of a suit , even at the second appellate stage - Referred to Harcharan v. State of Haryana, (1982) 3 SCC 408 and Rajender Prasad v. Kayastha Pathshala, (1981) Supp 1 SCC 56. (Para 33)

Asma Lateef vs Shabbir Ahmad 2024 INSC 36 - S 47 CPC – Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Judgment -Interim Orders

Order VIII Rule 10 - Scope and extent of power - Rule 10 is permissive in nature, enabling the trial court to exercise, in a given case, either of the two 13 alternatives open to it. Notwithstanding the alternative of proceeding to pronounce a judgment, the court still has an option not to pronounce judgment and to make such order in relation to the suit it considers fit. The verb ‘shall’ in Rule 10 [although substituted for the verb ‘may’ by the Amendment Act of 1976] does not elevate the first alternative to the status of a mandatory provision, so much so that in every case where a party from whom a written statement is invited fails to file it, the court must pronounce the judgment against him. If that were the purport, the second alternative to which ‘shall’ equally applies would be rendered otiose Only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need to be proved on account of deemed admission, could the court pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement- but if the plaint itself suggests involvement of disputed questions of fact, it would not be safe for the court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts- Provision of Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC is by no means mandatory in the sense that a court has no alternative but to pass a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, if the defendant fails or neglects to file his written statement - plaint in a suit is not akin to a writ petition where not only the facts are to be pleaded but also the evidence in support of the pleaded facts is to be annexed, whereafter, upon exchange of affidavits, such petition can be decided on affidavit evidence. Since facts are required to be pleaded in a plaint and not the evidence, which can be adduced in course of examination of witnesses, mere failure or neglect of a defendant to file a written statement controverting the pleaded facts in the plaint, in all cases, may not entitle him to a judgment in his favour unless by adducing evidence he proves his case/claim - Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999) 8 SCC 396 (Para 15-17) - It is to avoid a situation of contradictory/inconsistent decrees that power under Rule 10 of Order VIII ought to be invoked with care, caution, and circumspection, only when none of several defendants file their written statements and upon the taking of evidence from the side of the plaintiff, if deemed necessary, the entire suit could be decided. Where even one of several defendants had filed a written statement, it would be a judicious exercise of discretion for the court to opt for the second alternative in Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC unless, of course, extraordinary circumstances exist warranting recourse to the first alternative. (Para 22)

Section 47- The powers of an executing court, though narrower than an appellate or revisional court, can be exercised to dismiss an execution application if the decree put to execution is unmistakably found to suffer from an inherent lack of jurisdiction of the court that made the same rendering it a nullity in the eye of law - But the lack of jurisdiction must be patent on the face of the decree to enable an executing court to conclude that the decree was a nullity -All irregular or wrong decrees would not necessarily be void. An erroneous or illegal decision, which was not void, could not be objected in execution or incidental proceedings. - Referred to Rafique Bibi v. Sayed Waliuddin (2004) 1 SCC 287 and Balvant N. Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (2004) 8 SCC 706. (Para 29,37)

Interim Relief - Jurisdiction -Question of jurisdiction would assume importance even at the stage a court considers the question of grant of interim relief. Where interim relief is claimed in a suit before a civil court and the party to be affected by grant of such relief, or any other party to the suit, raises a point of maintainability thereof or that it is barred by law and also contends on that basis that interim relief should not to be granted, grant of relief in whatever form, if at all, ought to be preceded by formation and recording of at least a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or that it is not barred by law. Such a satisfaction resting on appreciation of the averments in the plaint, the application for interim relief and the written objection thereto, as well as the relevant law that is cited in support of the objection, would be a part of the court’s reasoning of a prima facie case having been set up for interim relief, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant and non-grant would cause irreparable harm and prejudice. It would be inappropriate for a court to abstain from recording its prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability, yet, proceed to grant protection pro tem on the assumption that the question of maintainability has to be decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV, CPC. That could amount to an improper exercise of power. If the court is of the opinion at the stage of hearing the application for interim relief that the suit is barred by law or is otherwise not maintainable, it cannot dismiss it without framing a preliminary issue after the written statement is filed but can most certainly assign such opinion for refusing interim relief. However, if an extraordinary situation arises where it could take time to decide the point of maintainability of the suit and non grant of protection pro tem pending such decision could lead to 29 irreversible consequences, the court may proceed to make an appropriate order in the manner indicated above justifying the course of action it adopts. In other words, such an order may be passed, if at all required, to avoid irreparable harm or injury or undue hardship to the party claiming the relief and/or to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by reason of non-interference by the court. (Para 39)

Section 2(9) - A judgment, as envisaged in section 2(9), CPC, should contain the process of reasoning by which the court arrived at its conclusion to resolve the controversy and consequently to decree the suit - Judgment - Any verdict of a competent judicial forum in the form of a judgment/order, that determines the rights and liabilities of the parties to the proceedings, must inform the parties what is the outcome and why one party has succeeded and not the other - the ‘why’ constituting the reasons and ‘what’ the conclusion. Apart from anything else, insistence of the requirement for the reason(s) to support the conclusion guarantees application of mind by the adjudicator to the materials before it as well as provides an avenue to the unsuccessful party to test the reasons before a higher court - a “judgment”, if pronounced by a court under Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC, must satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(2) of Order XX, CPC, and thereby conform to its definition provided in section 2(9) thereof - “decree” shall follow a “judgment” in a case where the court invokes power upon failure of a defendant to file its written statement. It is, therefore, only a “judgment” conforming to the provisions of the CPC that could lead to a “decree” being drawn up. (Para 43-47)

Section 2(9) - Order VIII Rule 10 - Order XX Rule 4(2)- A “judgment”, if pronounced by a court under Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC, must satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(2) of Order XX, CPC, and thereby conform to its definition provided in section 2(9) thereof - “decree” shall follow a “judgment” in a case where the court invokes power upon failure of a defendant to file its written statement. It is, therefore, only a “judgment” conforming to the provisions of the CPC that could lead to a “decree” being drawn up. (Para 44-45)

Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction is the entitlement of the civil court to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the cause has been brought before it by the plaintiff in a manner prescribed by law and also whether a good case for grant of relief claimed been set up by him. As and when such entitlement is established, any subsequent error till delivery of judgment could be regarded as an error within the jurisdiction. The enquiry as to whether the civil court is entitled to entertain and try a suit has to be made by it keeping in mind the provision in section 9, CPC and the relevant enactment which, according to the objector, bars a suit. Needless to observe, the question of jurisdiction has to be determined at the commencement and not at the conclusion of the enquiry. (Para 38)