Lecture No.

- 01 Civil Procedure Code

All Important Cases

By - ISRAA MA’AM
Topics to be Covered

Topic All important Cases

 Topic: General Principles
• Sangram Singh v. Code is designed to facilitate justice and hence too
Election Tribunal, AIR technical construction of provisions should not be
1955 SC 425 made. Provisions should be construed liberally and
technical objections should not be taken up.
• Salem Advocates Bar The Preamble of the Code states that the object of
Association (II) v. Union the Code is two fold; (1) to consolidate and (2) to
of India, AIR 2005 SC amend the laws relating to the procedure to be
3353 followed in civil courts. It is a procedure designed to
facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal
enactment for punishment and penalties.
• Westarty Dkhar v. In the areas to which the Code does not extend, the
Sehekaya Lyngdoh, courts in such areas shall be guided by spirit of the
(2015) 4 SCC 292 Code.
• Mahohar Lal v. Seth Code is exhaustive on the matters specifically dealt in it.
Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC However, the legislature is incapable of contemplating all
527 possible circumstances that may arise in civil litigation
therefore, with regard to those circumstances the court has
inherent powers to act according to principles of justice,
equity and good conscience. Such inherent powers of the
court is saved under Section 151 of the Code.
• Ram Lal and others v. The Supreme Court has observed that irregularity in the
Salig Ram and others report of the Local Commissioner appointed for local
AIR 2019 SC 739 investigation cannot be a ground for dismissal of a civil suit.
• Jai Jai Ram Manoharv. A party cannot be refused relief merely because of some
National Building mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the
Material Supply, AIR rules of procedure.
1969 SC 1267
• Prem LalaNahata v. The Code consolidates and amends the laws relating to the
Chandi Prasad Sikaria, procedure of the courts of civil judicature. No doubt it also
AIR 2007 SC 1247 deals with certain substantive rights. But its essential object is
to consolidate the law relating to civil procedure.
• State of Madras v. C.P. The term 'cause of action' connotes all categories of
Agencies, AIR 1960 SC facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
1309 traversed, in order to entitle him to a decree in suit.
• State of U.P. v. C.B. The word 'Code' includes not only sections but also
Mishra, AIR 1980 SC rules in the First Schedule and Rules made by High
591 Courts amending the Rules in First Schedule.
• South East Asia 'Cause of action' is a bundle of facts, which with the
Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav law applicable to them, gives plaintiff a right to claim
Bharat Enterprises Pvt. relief against the defendant.
Ltd., (1996) 3 SCR 405
 Topic: Definitions
• Shankarv. Chandrakant, A preliminary decree is one which declares the rights and
(1995) 3SCC 413 liabilities of the parties leaving the actual result to be
worked out in further proceedings. As a result of the
further enquiries pursuant to preliminary decree rights of
the parties are fully determined and final decree is passed.
• Dhani Ram v. Lala Sri A decree-holder need not necessarily be plaintiff. A
Ram,(1980)2 SCC 162 person who is not a party to the suit but in whose favour
an order capable of execution has been made is also a
decree holder.
• Renu Devi v. Mahendra The difference between preliminary decree and final
Singh, (2003) 10 SCC 200 decree lies in its purpose. A preliminary decree declares
the rights and liabilities of the parties and leaves the
actual result to be worked out for a later stage. Final
decree determines the rights of the decree finally and
decree is passed in accordance with such determination.
• Deep Chand v. Land A decision on a matter of administrative nature is not a
Acquisition Officer, AIR décree.
1994 SC 1901
• Shiv Shakti Cooperation In order to determine whether an order of the court is a
Housing Society v. Swaraj decree or not court must take into account the pleadings
Developers, AIR 2003 SC of the parties and the proceedings leading upto the
2434 passing of an order. Circumstances under which an order
is made should also be taken into account.
• Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal, There is nothing in the Code which prohibits the passing
AIR 1967 SC 1470 of more than one preliminary decrees if circumstances
justify the same and where it is necessary to do so.
• Sital Prasad Saxena v. Since passing of preliminary decree is only a stage prior
Kishori Lal, AIR 1967 SC to passing of final decree, if an appeal preferred against a
1236 preliminary decree succeeds, the final decree
automatically falls to the ground as there will be no
preliminary decree to support it.
• Rachakonda Venkar Rao v. R. It is a settled law that more than one final decree can be
Satya Bai, AIR 2003 SC 3322 passed.
• Hansraj Gupta v. Official The term 'suit' has not been defined in the Code. The
Liquidators of Dehradun-Mussorie Supreme Court held that 'Suit' means a civil proceeding
Electric Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR instituted by the presentation of a plaint.
1933 PC 63 & Pandurang
Ramchandra v. Shantibai
Ramchandra, AIR 1989 SC 2240
• Lucy Kochuvareed v. P. Mariappa Liability to pay mesne profits goes with the actual
Gounder, AIR 1979 SC 1214 possession and enjoyment of the immovable property.
But, where the plaintiff's dispossession can be regarded
as a joint or concerted act of several persons, each of
them who participates in the commission of that act
would be liable for mesne profits even though he was
not in actual possession.
• Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, In judgment the whole process of reasoning has to be
AIR 1999 SC 3381 set out in deciding the case one way or the other. It
must not merely say 'suit decreed' or 'suit dismissed'.
 Topic: JURISDICTION & SUITS OF CIVIL NATURE
• Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, Defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the decree
AIR 1954 SC 340 or order. A decree passed without jurisdiction is a
nullity. Supreme Court held that a decree passed
without jurisdiction is a nullity. A defect of
jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the court
and it cannot be cured even by the consent of the
parties.
• Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., AIR Every presumption is made in favour of jurisdiction
1969 SC 78, Kamla Mills v. of the court. Provision of exclusion of jurisdiction of
State of Bombay, AIR 1965 SC the courts must be strictly construed. In case of
1942 doubt as to jurisdiction the courts will lean in favour
of jurisdiction.
• Hakam Singh v. Gammon When two or more courts have jurisdiction to
(India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740 entertain a suit, an agreement by the parties to
submit to the jurisdiction of any one of such courts
to the exclusion of other is valid and binding.
• Shivnarayan (D) by LRs v. The Supreme Court interpreted Section 17 of the Code
Maniklal (D) by LRs 2019 (1) of Civil Procedure and observed that, a suit in respect to
RCR (Civil) 985 immovable property or properties situate in jurisdiction
of different courts may be instituted in any court within
whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the
property or one or more properties may be situated. The
interpretation of word "portion of the property" in
Section 17 cannot only be understood in a limited and
restrictive sense of being portion of one property
situated in jurisdiction of two courts.
• Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, The jurisdiction of the court has to be decided on the
AIR 1985 SC 577 allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint and not on
the allegations made by the defendant in the written
statement.
• M.S. Hasnuddin v. State of Every court or tribunal is not only entitled but bound to
Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC determine whether the matter in which it is asked to
404 exercise its jurisdiction comes within its jurisdiction or
not.
• LIC v. India Automobiles, AIR When a court of limited jurisdiction has jurisdiction
1991 SC 884 to decide only a particular dispute, it has jurisdiction
to consider collateral issue only prima facie and the
jurisdiction of a civil court to decide such issue
finally is not taken away.
• Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan No court can refuse to entertain a suit if it is of the
v. Moran Marthoma, AIR 1995 description mentioned in the Section 9.
SC 2001
• Shashi Prakash Khemka (Dead) The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction of
through LRs. v. NEPC Micon the civil court is completely barred in matters in
(Now called NEPC India Ltd.) & respect of which power has been conferred on the
Ors., (2019) SCC Online SC 223 National Company Law Tribunal.
70 (IBC) 01/2019
• Shiv Kumar v. Municipal Where statutory enactments only create rights or
Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 161 liabilities without providing for remedies, any person
having a grievance, can approach the ordinary civil
court on the principle of law that where there is a
right there is a remedy.
• Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan The words 'civil nature' are wider than the words
v. Moran Mat Marthom, AIR 'civil proceedings'. Section 9 would be available in
1995 SC 2001 every case where the dispute has the characteristics
of affecting one's rights which are not only civil but
of civil nature.
• Jitendra Nath v. Empire India A suit is said to be 'impliedly barred' when it is
and Ceylone Tea Co., AIR 1990 barred by general principles of law. Where a specific
SC 255 remedy is given by a statute, it thereby deprives the
person who insists upon a remedy of any other form
than that given by statute.
• Official Trustee v. Sachindra, Court laid down following principle with regard to
AIR 1965 SC 823 the determination of jurisdiction:-
1. A court can be held to have jurisdiction to
decide a particular matter if the court is
competent to try the suit and at the same time it
has jurisdiction to pass the order sought.
2. Jurisdiction of a court must include the power to
hear and decide the question in issue.
• State of U.P. v. A person having grievance of civil nature has a right to
Moradhway Singh, AIR institute a civil suit unless its cognizance is expressly or
1960 SC 796 impliedly barred.
• Sinha Ramanuja v. Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines to decide
Ranga Ramanuja, AIR whether a right to religious office would be a right or civil
1961 SC 1720 nature?:-
1. A suit for declaration of religious honours simpliciter
will not lie.
2. Suit to establish one's right to an office in a temple and
honours, privileges etc. attached to that office will be
maintainable.
3. The condition for existence of office is that the holder of
the office should be under a legal obligation to discharge
the duties attached to the office.
• Union of India v. Ladlu Section 20 is designed to ensure that the defendant should
Lal Jain, AIR 1963 SC not be put to trouble and expense of travelling long distance
1681 in order to defend himself. Section 20 is a residuary section
and covers all the cases not dealt in by Sections 15-19.
• Om Prakash Agrawal v. The policy underlying Section 21 of the Code of Civil
Vishan Dayal Rajpoot, (2019) Procedure is that when the case has been tried by a
14 SCC 526 court on merits and the judgment has been rendered, it
should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical
grounds, unless it has resulted in failure of justice. If
the objections as to territorial or pecuniary jurisdictions
are not taken at the earliest possible opportunity then it
cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent-stage.
• Sneh Lata Goel v. Pushplata, Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it
(2019) 3 SCC 594 clear that an objection as to the want of territorial
jurisdiction does not go to the root of the jurisdiction. It
does not constitute inherent lack of jurisdiction.
• Hiralal v. Kalinath, AIR 1962 There is a difference between inherent lack of
SC 199 jurisdiction and mere lack of territorial or pecuniary
jurisdiction. Inherent lack of jurisdiction goes to the
root of the matter. An objection regarding the lack of
territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is merely technical
and does not go to the root of the matter.
 Topic: TRANSFER OF SUITS
• Dungesh Sharma v. The power under Section 24 does not authorize a
Jayshree, (2008) 9 SCC High Court to transfer any suit, appeal etc from a
648 court subordinate to that High Court to a court not
subordinate to that High Court.
• Arvee Industries v. Ratan The power to transfer must be exercised with
Lal, AIR 1977 SC 2429 extreme caution and circumspection and in the
interest of justice. The court while deciding the
question must bear in mind two conflicting interests:
(1) the right of the plaintiff to choose the forum and
(2) the power and duty of the court to assure fair
trial.
• Indian Overseas Bank v. Balance of convenience is prime consideration for
Chemical Construction, transfer of a suit. Balance of convenience is neither
AIR 1979 SC 1514 convenience of plaintiff alone nor of the defendant
alone, but of both. Further, convenience of witnesses
required for a proper trial of the suit, and, the
convenience of the particular place of trial having
regard to the nature of the evidence on main points
involved in the suit and doctrine of forum
convenience are relevant factors.
• Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Section 24 does not prescribe any ground for
Kumari, AIR 2008 SC ordering the transfer of case. It merely gives a
2987 discretionary power on the court. The court is
required to issue a notice to the other side before
directing the transfer.
 Topic: RES SUB JUDICE & RES JUDICATA
• Indian Bank v. Maharashtra Since rule under Section 10 applies to the trial of
State Coop. Marketing the suit and not the institution it does not preclude
Federation, (1998) 5 SCC the courts from passing interim orders such as
69 grant of injunction, appointment of receiver etc.
• Radha Devi v. Deep The test for applicability of Section 10 is whether
Narayan, (2003) 11 SCC the decision in a previously instituted suit would
759 operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. If it
is so, the subsequent suit must be stayed.
• Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopal, The object of Section 10 is to prevent the courts of
AIR 2004 SC 3504 concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying
two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in
issue. The decree passed in contravention of this
section is not a nullity as it enacts a mere rule of
procedure.
• National Institute of M.H. & Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of
N.S., v. C Parameshwara, the matter in issue in both the suits. The whole
AIR 2005 SC 242 subject matter in both the suits should be identical.

• Satyadhyan Ghosal v. The principle of res judicata is based on the need

Deonifin Debiy AIR 1960 of giving finality to judicial decisions. Primarily it
SC 941 applies between past litigation and future
litigation.
• Workmen v. Board of Where any matter which might and ought to have
Trustees, Cochin Port Trust, been made a ground of defence or attack in a
AIR 1978 SC 1283 former proceeding but was not so made then such
a matter is deemed to have been constructively in
issue to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
• Daryao v: State of U.P.,AIR Doctrine of res judicata is of universal application
1961 SC 1457 and it is a part of rule of law.
• Iftikar Ahmed v. SyedA matter may be res judicata between co-plaintiffs and
Meharban Ali, AIR co-defendants also if the following conditions are
1974 SC 749 satisfied.
 There must be a conflict of interest between co-
plaintiffs and co-defendants;
 It must be necessary to decide such conflict in order
to give relief to the plaintiff;
 The questions between co-defendants and co-
plaintiffs must be finally decided; Co-
defendants/plaintiffs were necessary or proper
parties in the former suit.
• Asgar v. Mohan Verma Liberty granted by court to avail 'appropriate remedies'
2019 (2) Supreme 53 to a party does not bar application of principle of
constructive res judicata when the person invokes such
a remedy.
• Sulochana Amma v. Rule of res judiciata would apply to all judicial
Narayana Nair, JT proceedings whether civil (including arbitration, taxation
(1993) (5) SC 450 etc.) or criminal. It equally applies to all quasi judicial
proceedings of the tribunal's administrative order.
• Pandurang v. A matter in respect of which no relief is claimed cannot
Shantabai, AIR 1989 become 'directly and substantially' in issue, even if a
SC 2240 decree is passed by a competent court.
• Vithal Yeshwant v, Where there are findings on several issues or where the
Shikandarkhan, AIR court rests decision on more than one points, the findings
1963 SC 385 on all issues or points will be res judiciata.
• Sheodhan Singh v. Decision on the former suit must have been on merits and
Daryo Kumar, AIR so matter cannot be said to be finally decided when the
1966 SC 1332 former suit was dismissed by trial court for want of
jurisdiction or for default of plaintiff's appearance, or on
the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties etc.
• Forward Construction The words 'might and ought' have wide amplitude. The
Co. v. Prabhat word 'might' conveys the idea of possibility of joining all
Mandal, AIR 1986 grounds of attack or defence and 'ought' carries the idea
SC 391 of propriety of so joining. The test is whether the parties
had the opportunity of raising the plea and if they had,
the matter will be treated as actually raised and decided.
• State of U.P. v. The general principles of res judicata and constructive
Nawab Hussain, AIR res judiciata will be applicable to writ petitions.
1977 SC 1680
• Gulam Abbas v. State Section 11 is not exhaustive. Rules of res judicata
of Uttar Pradesh, AIR enacted in Section 11 have some technical aspects. The
1981 SC 2198 general doctrine is founded on considerations of high
public policy to achieve objectives i.e. there must be
finality to litigation and that individual should not be
harassed twice over with the same kind of litigation.
• Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. A matter directly in issue in the former suit would not
Banamali Sen, AIR operate as res judicata unless it was also substantially in
1953 SC 33 issue in former suit.
• Konda Lakshmana A conjoint reading of Section 11 and Explanation IV
Bapuji v. shows that a plea which might and ought to have been
Govemment of A.P., taken in the earlier suit, shall be deemed to have been
AIR 2002 SC 1012 taken and decided against the person raising the plea in
the subsequent suit.
 Topic: Foreign Judgments
• Sardar Maloji, Nar Singh Rules laid down in Section 13 are rules of
Roa v. Sankar Saran, AIR substantive law and not merely procedural law.
1962 SC 1767
• Vishwanathan v. Abdul Judgment pronounced must be by a competent
Wajid, AIR 1963 SC 21 foreign court both by law of the State which
constituted it and in international sense. It must
also directly adjudicate upon the matter which is
pleaded as res judiciata.
• Narsimha Rao v. Venkata Foreign judgments in matrimonial matters will be
Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451 recognized by Indian courts, if the jurisdiction
assumed by the foreign court as well as the
grounds on which the relief is granted is in
accordance with the matrimonial law under which
the parties are married.
• Satya v. Teja Singh, AIR The rules of private international law of each State
1975 SC 105 vary on different things in different sense but by
the comity of nations certain rules are recognized
as common to civilized jurisdiction. Such
recognition is accorded on the considerations of
justice, equity and good conscience. It is well
established principle of Public International Law
that if a foreign judgment is obtained by fraud, it
will not operate as res judiciata. Fraud vitiates all
judicial acts.
 Topic: PARTIES TO SUIT
• Swapna Mohanty v. Necessary party is a person whose presence is necessary in
State of Odisha, order to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and
(2018) 17 SCC 621 settle all issues raised in a dispute. It is a party in absence
Globe Ground of whom no effective order can be made. A proper party is
(India) Employees one in whose absence effective order can be made, but
Union v. Lufthansa whose presence is necessary for complete and final
German Airlines, decision.
(2019) 15 SCC 273
• Kasturi v. Supreme Court laid down following two tests to determine
Iyyamperumal, AIR whether a party is necessary party:-
2005 SC 2813 i. There must be right to some relief against such party
in respect of the matter involved in the proceeding in
question; and
ii. It should not be possible to pass effective decree in
absence of such a party.
• Anil Kumar v. Shivnath, (1995) 3 Supreme Court has observed that the object of rule of
SCC 147 necessary party is to bring on record all persons who
are parties to the dispute relating to the subject-
matter so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and
inconvenience.
• Aliyathammuda In order to compromise in a representative suit, it is
Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya v. necessary to obtain leave of the court. Before the
Pattakal Cheriyakoya, (2019) 16 grant of leave, the court has to give notice in such
SCC 1 manner as it may think fit to such persons as may
appear it to be interested in the suit.
• Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, AIR 1990 The principal consideration that should weigh with
SC 397 the court in granting permission for representative
suit is whether it is satisfied that there is community
of interest to justify the adoption of procedure laid
down in Order 1. Rule 8.
• Aliyathammuda Supreme Court held that a compromise decree in a
Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya v. representative suit obtained without the leave of the
Pattakal Cheriyakoya and court and without issuing notice to the parties
Ors(2019), (2019) 16 SCC 1 interested would be void.
 Topic: Order 2 Rule 2
• Pramod Kumar v. Embargo in Order 2 Rule 2 will arise only of the claim,
Zalak Singh, (2019) which is omitted or relinquished and the reliefs which are
6 SCC 621 omitted and not claimed, arise from one cause of action. If
there is more than one cause of action then Order 2 Rule 2
will not apply.
• Kewal Singh v. Before the bar of Order 2 . Rule 2 is invoked the following
Lajwanti, AIR 1980 three questions are to be asked:-
SC 161 1. Whether the cause of action in the previous suit and
subsequent suit is identical?
2. Whether the relief claimed in the subsequent suit could
have been given in a previous suit on the basis of
pleadings made in a plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiff omitted to sue for a particular
relief on the cause of action which was disclosed in the
previous suit?
 Topic: Pleadings
• Ganesh Trading Co. v. Provision relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant
Moji Ram, AIR 1979 to give each party an intimation of the case of the
SC 484 other so that it may enable the court to determine the
real issue between the parties.
• Udhav Singh v. Madhav All primary facts which must be proved at the trial by
Rao Scindia, AIR 1976 a party to establish the existence of a cause of action
SC 744 or defence are material facts.
• Ponnayal v. Civil suits are decided on the basis of pleadings and
Karuppannan, (2019) 11 issues framed. Parties to suit cannot be permitted to
SCC 800 travel beyond pleadings.
• Virendra Nath v. Satpal 'Material facts' are fact upon which the plaintiff's
Singh, AIR 2007 SC cause of action or defendant's defence depends.
581
• Raja Ram v. Jai Prakash In cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, full
Singh, (2019) 8 SCC particulars must be set forth in pleadings and case can
701 only be decided on the particulars as laid. Parties are
supposed to plead precise nature of the influence
unfair advantage obtained by another.
• Harish Chandra v. Pleadings should not be construed very strictly. They
Triloki Singh, AIR 1957 have to be interpreted liberally and regard must be had
SC 444 to the substance of the matter.
• Sathi Vijay Kumar v. The power to strike out pleadings is extraordinary in
Tota Singh, (2006) 13 nature and must be exercised by the court sparingly
SCC 353 and with extreme caution.
• M. Revanna v. Supreme Court, held that while considering the
Anjanamma(2019) amendment application after commencement of trial
(2019) 4 SCC 332 the courts have to consider whether it is bona fide or
mala fide and whether it causes such prejudice to the
other side which cannot be compensated adequately in
terms of money.
• Usha Devi v. Rijwan The merits of the amendment sought to be
Ahmad, (2008) 3 SCC incorporated by way of amendment are not to be
717 judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment.
• M/s M. Laxmi And Co. While considering amendment application the courts
v. Dr. Anand R. can take notice of subsequent events to shorten the
Deshpande, AIR 1973 litigation, preserve rights of both parties and to sub-
SC 171 serve ends of justice.
• Jai Jai Ram Manoharlal The power to grant amendment is not governed by
v. National Building technical limitations. A amendment of plaint for the
Co., AIR 1969 SC 1267 purpose of rectification of the mis-description of the
name of the party is allowable.
• Haridas Alidas Thadani Courts should be extremely liberal in granting prayer
v. Godrej Rustom of amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or
Kermani, AIR 1983 SC irreparable loss is caused to the other side.
319
• Vanun Pahwa v. Renu Amendment of plaint to rectify inadvertent procedural
Chaudhary, (2019) 15 mistake by advocate describing parties in cause title of
SCC 628 suit/ memo of parties is permissible. Rules of
procedure cannot defeat substantive rights of parties.
• M. Revanna v. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a
Anjanamma, (2019) 4 totally different, new and inconsistent case or
SCC 332 challenges the fundamental character of the suit.
The burden is on the person who seeks an amendment
after commencement of trial to show that in spite of
due diligence, such an amendment could not have
been sought earlier.
• ONGC v. Modem When the plaint is filed in the proper court after
Construction Co., getting returned from the wrong court, it cannot be
(2014) 1 SCC 648 said to be a continuation of suit. The suit must be
deemed to commence when a plaint is filed in the
proper court.
• Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs. Supreme Court held that plaint can either be rejected as
Axis Bank, (2019) 7 SCC a whole or not at all. It is not permissible to reject plaint
158 qua any particular portion of a plaint including against
some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against
the others.
• Shaukat Hussain Mohd. Patel While dealing with the application for rejection of
v. Khatunben Mohmmedbhai plaint, entirety of plaint averments have to be taken into
Rolara, (2019) 10 SCC 226 consideration.
• Colonel Shrawan Kumar The Supreme Court has observed that a plaint can be
Jaipuriyar @ Sarwan Kumar rejected Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Jaipuriyar v. Krishna Nantlan Procedure, when it is manifestly vexatious, meritless
Singh and another (2019) and groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a
Civil Appeal No. 6760 of clear right to sue. A mere contemplation or possibility
2019 on 02.09 .2019 that a right may be infringed without any legitimate
basis for that right, would not be sufficient to hold that
the plaint discloses a cause of action.
• Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. The Supreme Court has observed that a plaint can be
Ram Prasanna Singh (D) rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil
through Lrs, Civil Appeal No. Procedure, if by considering the averments, it is found
2960/2019 on 13.03.2019 that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation.
• Mayar H.K. Ltd. v. Owners The grounds for rejection of plaint specified in O.7. R.
and Parties, Vessel M. V. 11 are not exhaustive. A plaint can be rejected on other
Fortune Express, AIR 2006 SC relevant ground also. Where the plaint is found to be
1828 vexatious or meritless, not disclosing a clear right to
sue, the court may reject the plaint.
• Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhatter Only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no
Singh Gill, AIR 1982 SC 1559 cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must
be rejected.
• Shaukathussain Mohammed The entirety of the averments in the plaint have to be
Patel v. Khatunben taken into account while considering a plea seeking
Mohmmedbhai Polara, (2019) rejection of plaint.
10SCC 226
• Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Re-presentation of petition in court which is
v. Tejparas Associates and indicated in order for return of plaint cannot be
Exports (P) Ltd., (2019) 9 considered as fresh filing in all circumstances
SCC 435 when it is returned to plaintiff for such re-
presentation.
• Kailash v. Nankhu, AIR Outer time limit of 90 days for filing the written
2005 SC 2441 Salem statement is not mandatory. Court can extend the
Advocate Bar Association time for filing written statement beyond 90 days
(2) v. Union of India, (2005) but it should only be done in an exceptional
6 SCC 344 circumstances and routine orders cannot be
passed. The court harmoniously constructed O .8
R. 1,9 and 10 .
• SCG Contracts (India) (P) Clear, definite and mandatory provisions of Order
Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar 5 Rule 1 r/w Order 8 Rule 1 and 10 CPC [as
Infrastructure (P) Ltd., amended for suits relating to commercial disputes
(2019) 12 SCC 210 of specified value by Act 4 of 2016] cannot be
circumvented by recourse to inherent power under
Section 151 CPC.
The Supreme Court observed that proviso added
to the Code of Civil Procedure by Commercial
Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial
Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, is
mandatory and no written statement can be taken
on record in commercial suits, if it is not filed
within 120 days from the date of service of
summons of the Suit.
• Ashok Kumar Kalra v. The Supreme Court has held that a Court can
Wing Cdr Surendra exercise its discretion and permit the filing of a
Agnihotri and others, (2019) counter-claim after the written statement, till the
Supreme SC 1280 stage of framing of the issues of the trial. Order
VIII Rule 6 A of the CPC does not pose an
embargo on filing the counter-claim after filing
the written statement.
 Topic: APPEARANCE & NON-APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

• Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. v. If the court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for
Union of India, AIR 2007 the non-appearance of the plaintiff, the court may set-
SC 1481 aside the order of dismissal and fix a day for proceeding
with the suit.
• G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. The words 'sufficient cause' must be liberally construed to
Raizada, AIR 2000 SC enable the court to exercise powers ex debito justitae.
1221 'Sufficient cause' for the purpose of O.9 R. 13 has to be
construed as elastic expression for which no hard or fast
rule can be laid down. The material date for deciding the
'sufficient cause' for non-appearance by the defendant is
the date on which ex parte decree was passed and not his
previous negligence or past defaults.
• Arjun Singh v. Mohinder There is no material difference between facts established
Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993 for satisfying the two tests of 'good cause' under O.9 R. 7
and 'sufficient cause' under O.9 R. 13. There cannot be a
'good cause' which is not 'sufficient'.
• Sangram Singh v. Ex parte proceedings do not mean that defendant
Election Tribunal, Kotah, cannot be allowed to appear at all in subsequent
AIR 1955 SC 425 proceedings of the suit. It only relates to the
particular day of hearing on which the defendant
remains absent.
• G.Ratna Raj by LRs v. The Supreme Court observed that a decree passed
Sri Muthukumaraswamy after taking plaintiff's evidence, without the
Permanent Fund Ltd., appearance of defendant at the trial stage, is an ex-
(2019) 11 SCC 301 parte decree. Such a decree could be set aside under
Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 Topic: Execution
• S. Bhaskaran v. Sebastian, Executing court cannot travel beyond the scope of decree
(2019) 9 SCC 161 or order. Any order passed by the executing court by
travelling beyond the decree or order is without
jurisdiction.
• Sneh Latha Goel v. The Supreme Court observed that an executing court has
Pushplata, (2019) 3 SCC no jurisdiction to decide whether the court which passed
594 the decree had territorial jurisdiction. An objection to the
want of territorial jurisdiction does not travel to the root of
or to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of a civil court to
entertain the suit.
• Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary to file a
Pvt Ltd v. Shashi Mohan copy of the decree along with execution application unless
Kapur (D) through LRs the Court directs the decree holder to file a certified copy
2019 (9) Scale 369 of the decree.
• S. Bhaskaran v. The Supreme Court has reiterated a settled
Sebastian (Dead) through proposition that an executing court cannot travel
LRs (2019) 9 SCC 161 beyond the order or decree under execution.
• Merla Ramanna v. The court which actually passed the decree does not
Nallaparaju, AIR 1956 lose its jurisdiction to execute it by reason of the
SC 87 subject matter being transferred to another court's
jurisdiction.
• Kiran Singh v. Chaman A court executing a decree cannot go behind the
Paswan, AIR 1954 SC decree and must execute it as it stands. It has no
340 power to entertain any objection as to the validity,
legality or correctness of the decree. In case of
inherent lack of jurisdiction the decree of the court is
a nullity and its invalidity can be enforced, whether
in execution or collateral proceedings.
• Ghantesher v. Madan It is the duty of the court which passed the decree to
Mohan, AIR 1997 SC get it executed with the view to see that rights and
471 obligations flowing from such decree is finally
complied with. Till that stage is reached, the court
which passed the decree does not become functus
officio.
• State of Punjab v. Dina The proviso to Section 60(1) is in the nature of
Nath, AIR 1984 SC 352 exception to the general rule laid down in the main
provision.
 Topic: Special Suits
• Raghunath Das v. Union of The primary object of the notice under Section 80 is to
India, AIR 1969 SC Bihari afford an opportunity to the Government or public officer
Chowdhary v. State of to settle the claim put forward by the prospective plaintiff
Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1043 and to avoid unnecessary litigation.
• Y. Savarimuthu v. State of Notice under Section 80(1) of Civil Procedure Code does
Tamil Nadu, (2019) 13 not have to state the section in which it is made so long as
SCC 142 the ingredients of Section 80(3) are met.
• Bihar Chowdhary v. State The object of notice under Section 80 is to give to the
of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC government or public servant an opportunity to reconsider
1043 the legal position and to make amends if necessary to
avoid litigation. The object of Section 80 is advancement
of justice.
• Pukhraj v. State of The expression 'act' also includes illegal omissions. If the
Rajasthan, AIR 1973 SC suit relates to the act done by public officer in his
2591 individual capacity, no notice is required.
• Sushil Thomas Abraham v. The Supreme Court has held that rejection of application
M/s Skyline Builders, by a plaintiff under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
(2019) 3 SCC 415 Procedure (seeking permission to institute the suit as an
indigent person) by the trial court in the earlier round of
litigation is not a bar against the plaintiff to file an
application/appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code and
seek permission from the appellate court to allow him to
file an appeal as an indigent person.
• Ram Chandra Arya v. Man If a decree is passed against a minor without appointing a
Singh and others, AIR 1968 guardian the decree is nullity.
SC 954
• Union Bank of India v. The word 'persons' mentioned in O. 33 R. 1 should be
Khader International given liberal interpretation. It must refer to natural persons
Constructions, (2001) 5 as well as legal persons. A public limited company can
SCC 22 very well maintain the application under this provision.
 Topic: Temporary Injunctions
• Martin Bum Ltd. v. R.N. Supreme Court held that a prima facie case does not
Banerjee, AIR 1958 SC mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can
79 be said to be established if the evidence which is led
in support of the same were believed.
• Manohar Lal Chopra v. Supreme Court held that even if the case is not
Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 covered under the grounds mentioned in Order 39
SC 527 interim injunction can be granted by the court in
exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the
Code.
• U.C. Surendranath v. Supreme Court observed that a person can be held
Mambally's Bakery, guilty of willful disobedience of the Order 39 Rule
(2019) SCC Online SC 2A, not for mere 'disobedience' but only for 'willful
923 disobedience.'
• Morgan Stanley Mutual Supreme Court laid down following factors which
Fund v. Kartick Das, must guide the court before granting ex parte interim
(1994) 4 SCC 225 injunction :
a) Whether the refusal of ex parte interim injunction
would involve a greater injustice than the grant of
it would involve;
b) The court would expect utmost good faith from
the party applying for grant of ex parte interim
injunction;
c) Whether irreparable and serious mischief will
ensue to the plaintiff,
d) General principles like prima facie case, balance
of convenience and irreparable loss would also be
considered by the court;
e) Even if ex parte interim injunction is granted it
would be for a limited period.
• Samir Narayan Bhojwani Interim mandatory injunction can only be granted in
v. Aurora Properties and
circum. stances which are clear and the prima facie
Investment, (2018) 17 material clearly justify a finding that the status quo
SCC 203 has been altered by one of the parties and the interest
of the justice demands that the status quo ante be
restored.
The moulding of relief can be considered at the time
of consideration of final relief and not at the
interlocutory stage.
• Modi Entertainment When a court restrains a party to a suit or
Network v. W.S.G. proceedings before it from instituting or prosecuting
Cricket, 2003(1) SCALE a case in another court including a foreign court it is
388 called 'anti-suit injunction'.
• Manohar Lal v. Seth When the case is not covered by Order 39, interim
Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC injunction can be granted by court in exercise of
527 inherent power under Section 151 of the Code.
 Topic: Appeals
• Gujarat Agro Industries Appeal is a creature of statute and it is not an inherent
Ltd. v. Municipal right.
Corporation, AIR 1999
SC 1818
• Bhivchandra Shankar Supreme Court held that the right of appeal under
More vs. Balu Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right and the
Gangaram, (2019) 6 SCC defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right of
387 appeal merely on the ground that the application filed
by him under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has been
dismissed.
• R.S. Anjayya Gupta v. In first appeal the parties have the right to be heard
Thippaiah Setty, (2019) on both question of law as well as on facts. The court
7 SCC 300 is required to address itself to all the aspects and
decide the case by ascribing reasons.
• Tek Singh v. Shashi Verma, Supreme Court reiterated that revision petitions
(2019) 16 SCC 678 filed under Section 115 are not maintainable
against interlocutory orders.
• Manohar Shankar Nale v. Where a review petition is dismissed, the doctrine
Jaipalsing Shivlalsing of merger will have no application whatsoever. It
Rajput, (2008) 1 SCC 520 is one thing to say that the judgment debtor was
entitled to file an application for review in terms
of S. 114 read with O. 47, R. 1 of C.P.C. but
another thing to say that the decree passed in
favour of the decree holder merged with the order
dismissing the review application.
• Thulasidhara v. Interference with the concurrent findings of facts
Narayanappa, (2019) 6SCC by High Court in second appeal is permissible
409 when the material or relevant evidence not
considered or when the findings are arrived at by
relying on inadmissible evidence by the first
appellate court.
• Thulasidhara v. Formulation of substantial question of law is sine
Narayanappa, (2019) 6SCC qua non for exercising jurisdiction in Second
409 Appeal.
• Gumam Singh v. Lehna In Second Appeal the High Court cannot
Singh, (2019)7 SCC 641 substitute its own opinion for that of the first
appellate court, unless it finds that the conclusions
drawn by the lower court were erroneous being:-
1. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the
law
2. Contrary to the law as pronounced by the
Supreme Court
3. Based on inadmissible evidence or no
evidence.
• Narayana Gramani v. Exercise of power by High Court in Second Appeal:
Mariammal, (2018) 18.SCC Principles summarized:-
645 1. Second appeal can be entertained only when the
High Court is satisfied that the case involves
'substantial question of law'.
2. Once the High Court is satisfied that there is
'substantial question of law', it shall frame it and
then issue notice to the respondents.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted only to
decision on such 'substantial question of law'.
4. Any finding on issue without framing the
substantial question of law on that issue would
render it without jurisdiction.
5. Generally the 'substantial question of law' is
framed in the absence of the respondent. He is
given the liberty to urge that the case does not
involve substantial question of law.
• Sreedevi & Ors v. Sarojam The Supreme Court held that High Court is under
& Ors Civil Appeal No. an obligation to frame substantial question of law,
1301/2019 on 30.01 .2019 while considering a Second Appeal even if lower
courts' findings are perverse per se.
• State of Rajasthan v. Shiv The Supreme Court has observed that a High
Dayal, (2019) 8 SCC 637 Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on
the ground that that there is a concurrent finding
of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing
of the suit), and thus such finding becomes
unassailable.
• Illoh Valappil Ambunhi (D) The Supreme Court has observed that mere error
through LRs v. Kunhambu in framing a question of law would not render a
Kamavan, Civil Appeal No. judgment in Second Appeal liable to be set aside,
1429/2011 on 19.09 .2019 if it is found that a substantial question of law
existed and such question has in fact been
answered by the High Court.
• Sital Prasad v. Kishori Lal, The object of section 97 is to prevent preliminary questions
AIR 1967 SC 1236 being raised in the form of appeal after a case has been
decided on merits. Since passing of preliminary decree is
only a stage prior to the passing of final decree, if an appeal
is preferred against a preliminary decree succeeds, the final
decree automatically falls to the ground.
• Chunnilal Mehta v. Century Supreme Court laid down the following principles regarding
Spinning and Mgf. Co. Lid., 'substantial question of law'-
AIR 1962 SC 1314 1. If the question is of general public importance, or it
directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties.
2. It is an open question, that is to say it is not finally settled
by Supreme Court or Privy Council or Federal Court.
• Pandurang Ramchandra An erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the
Mandli v. Maruti subordinate court which has no relation to the question of
Ramachandra Ghatge, AIR jurisdiction of that court, cannot be corrected by High Court
1966 SC 153 under Section 115.
 Topic: Miscellaneous
• Kiran Singh v. Chaman A decree passed by a court of higher grade is a mere
Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 irregularity covered by Section 99 and it is not a nullity.
• R Dhanasundari @ R The Supreme Court while examining the scope of Rule 1
Rajeswari v. A N A of Order XXIII CPC observed that, if the plaintiff is
Umakanth and others, Civil seeking to withdraw or to abandon his claim under Rule 1
Appeal No. 7292/2009 on of Order XXIII and the defendant seeking transposition is
06.03.19 having an interest in the subject-matter of the suit and
thereby, a substantial question to be adjudicated against
the other defendant, then the defendants can be transposed
as plaintiffs.
• Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. The Supreme Court has reiterated that, in a suit, the
Kiran Kant Robinson and plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add
others, (2019) SCC Online parties against whom he does not want to fight unless
SC 912 there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
• Mayandi v. Pandarachamy The Supreme Court has observed that the decree against
and another Civil Appeal plaintiffs by default bars fresh suit on the same cause of
No. 6424/2019 on action by their successor in title.
19.08.2019
• Bansidhar Sharma(Since The Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of
Deceased) v. The State Of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be
Rajasthan, 2019 (14) attracted when there is no variation or reversal of a decree
SCALE 658 or order. The principle of doctrine of restitution is that on
the reversal of a decree, the law imposes an obligation on
the party to the suit who received the benefit of the decree
to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost.
• Indian Bank v. Maharashtra A court has inherent power to 'consolidate' different suits
State Coop. Marketing between the same parties in which the matter in issue is
Federation Ltd, AIR 1998 substantially the same.
SC 1952
• Tushar Kantiv. Savitri The report of the Commissioner would furnish prima facie
Devi, AIR 1996 SC 2752 evidence of the facts and data collected by the
Commissioner. It will constitute an important piece of
evidence and cannot be rejected except on sufficient
ground. It would be open to the court to consider what
weight is to be attached to the data collected by the
Commissioner.
• Sardar Govindrao v. Devi The sole object behind the order of attachment before
Sahai, AIR 1982 SC 989 judgment is to give assurance to the plaintiff that his
decree if made would be satisfied. It is a sort of guarantee
against the decree becoming infructous for want of
property available from which the plaintiff can satisfy the
decree.
• Banwari Lal v. Chando A court passing a compromise decree performs a judicial
Devi, AIR 1993 SC 1139 act and not a ministerial act. Therefore, the court must
satisfy itself that the agreement is lawful and it can pass a
decree in accordance with it and that such decree can be
enforced against all the parties to the compromise.
• Shankarv. Balakrishna, A compromise decree is not a decision on merits and
AIR 1954 SC 325 it cannot be said that the case was 'heard and finally
decided'. It is based on consent and therefore, will
operate as 'estoppel'.
• Menka Gupta v. Supreme Court held that a transferee pendent lite has
Umashree Devi(2019) locus standi to file an application seeking substitution
• Civil Appeal No.S. 6163- of the original defendant who filed a petition to set
6164 / 2019 on aside ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13.
07.08.2019
• Hari Steel and General Supreme Court observed that 'Judgment on
Industries Ltd.v. Daljit Admissions' can be ordered only when there are
Singh, (2019) 4 MLJ 100 categorical and unconditional admissions made in the
(SC) pleadings.
• Dharam Singh v. Prem Entries in the revenue records can be challenged on
Singh, (2019) 3 SCC 530 the ground that it was made fraudulently or
surreptitiously.
• Afcons Infrastructure Court enumerated the case in which ADR processes
Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey can be resorted to:-
Constructions Co. (P) 1. All cases relating to trade, commerce and
Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24 contracts.
2. All cases arising from strained relationship, such
as matrimonial cases.
3. All cases where there is need for continuance of
pre-existing relationships.
4. All cases relating to tortious liability, including
motor accidents claims.
5. All consumer disputes.
Civil courts should invariably refer cases falling in
above category to ADR processes. Only in certain
recognized excluded categories the court need not
refer to ADR process.
Two Minutes Summary