Who is a "Necessary Party" in a Civil Suit : Supreme Court Explains the Issue
It has been held a “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.
Nak Engg. Co. Pvt Ltd v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah [2026] GCtR 8 (SC)
Suit For Injunction Restraining Passing Off Dismissed with Costs
In one of the case where suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off of trademark, copyright etc. was filed, after noting the agency agreement which plaintiff had with the Company and also noting that there are omissions in the plaint and the filing of an application under S.9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the suit was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2 lacs.
Avantika Elcon Pvt Ltd v. Ajit Industries Pvt. Ltd [2018] GCtR 6539 (Delhi)
Order XI Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Production of Documents
Order XI deals with Discovery and Inspection and contains 23 Rules and R.14 is applied during pendency of suit. In case of Shrikanth NS v. Munivenkatappa [2025] GCtR 1577 (SC) it was held that the plain reading of Order 11 R.14 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would manifest that the same enables the Court to seek production of the documents during the pendency of the suit.
It was held that while allowing the application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, the Trial Court has not adhered to the principles governing the disposal of the application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code.
In this case, Trial Court has earlier rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. Later on, suit was dismissed and plaintiff filed appeal. The application under Order 11 Rule 14 was filed by plaintiff. When plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, then question of leading evidence does not arise.
Recovery of Amount with Interest : Principles of Law
There are lot of court cases where a party is claiming refund of the amount paid to the other party.
The case of Ella Ghosh v. Prateek Aggarwal [2013] GCtR 6258 (Delhi) answers some interesting legal issues on the aspect of money recovery.
In said case, the opposite party B argued that the money paid by party A stood forfeited. It was also argued that plaintiff A failed to exercise the options. Opposite party B also argued that there was no such obligation on his part as was argued by plaintiff A.
The person A who gave money, produced the officials from Bank as witness for her bank statement. The Trial Court Judge, however, refused to order payment of money, by quoting S.65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, the Trial Court Judge also took note of financial conditions and the consequent action of non-refund of amount.
While setting aside the decision of Trial Court Judge, it was held that when there is no clear contract, then forfeiture of amount is not permissible. Refund of such amount has to be done.
In addition to the principal amount, plaintiff was also held entitled to interest amount from the date of filing of the suit.
"Res Judicata" : An Unexplored Aspect of the Practical Application
Res judicata's interesting aspect was noted in Vineet Khosla v Vikram Bakshi [2018] GCtR 3850 (Delhi).
The Supreme Court in an earlier judgment held that the general principle of res judicata was applicable in substance to all disputes before courts, even outside of the ambit of Section 11 of the CPC; in essence, the Court held that Section 11 was not an exhaustive or exclusive formulation of the law on res judicata.
The principle of res judicata stipulates that a matter directly and substantially in issue between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, which has already been decided by a court and attained finality, cannot be regurgitated in another, separate legal proceeding. Further, Explanation VI to Section 11 provides that in case of persons litigating bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this provision, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
Where one appeal has been filed by one aggrieved party against an order of a court, even if that appeal is dismissed on procedural grounds such as for want of prosecution or delay, then another appeal filed by a different aggrieved party to assail the same order which raises the same issues, cannot be held to be maintainable and would attract the doctrine of res judicata.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.
Additional Evidence in Litigations : The Legal Issue
An important Judgment was passed on 27 May 2015 in CR 6626 of 2013.
It has been held in Rani v Raksha Rani [2015] GCtR 3155 (P&H) that additional evidence cannot be allowed to be used as a handle or tool by a party to fill up the lacuna in his evidence particularly when rights of the parties have been adjudicated and the defendant is already in appeal before the first Appellate Court.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.
Suit for Recovery of Possession of Property : Appeal Allowed on 27 April 2023
A recent judgment dt. 27 April 2023 has been passed.
According to Section 68 (1) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 where the mortgagee is deprived of the whole or part of his security by or in consequence of the wrongful act or default of the mortgagor then mortgagee has a right to sue for the mortgage money.
According to the plaint in this case, defendant was permitted to use certain portion of property. When plaintiff bought the property, he permitted the defendant to continue but later wanted defendant to vacate the property which defendant refused to do.
When suit was filed, WS was filed by defendant. Plaintiff was the solitary witness and 7 documents were exhibited. However, Trial Court had dismissed the suit.
The suit was earlier dismissed on ground of limitation and appeal was filed. In appeal it was held that A.67 has no applicable and A.113 of Limitation Act, 1963 will be applied. Last occasion of accrual of right to sue will be the factor. It was also held that legal capacity to grant licence depends upon the title of the grantor (referring S.53 of Easements Act).
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.
Property Case : Defendants Restrained From Further Construction on 27 April 2023
In a recent judgment dated 27 April 2023, the appeal was allowed and application for temporary injunction under Order 39 was allowed.
The Facts were that an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC as filed by the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed with no order as to costs by the Trial Court. Appeal was filed. Plaintiffs had exclusive of land in question.
Property
The plaintiffs pleaded that A and B, sons of C were owners in possession of property detailed and described in para no. 1 of the plaint, situated within the revenue estate of a village. It was alleged that defendants are shrewd and cunning type sperson and they want to grab the property of the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs further submitted that B died issue-less on 01.11.1987 and his brother A died prior to him. Thereafter, the property in question was succeeded in the name of D,E,F and G in equal shares, being the sons of A. On 23.10.1986, a family settlement took place among D,E,F and G regarding the property in question, which was divided among them, whereby, G relinquished his share in favour of E in lieu of his share comprised in Haveli to the extent of 1/4th share.
Findings in Appeal
In this case, it is an admitted fact that initially, the plot measuring was owned by sons of A.
This alleged sale by way of agreement or by way of sale deed is not at all prima-facie proved on the file. Therefore, at the most, legal heirs of G can get ¼ share in the suit property, where they have constructed their house, shown in Purple colour, as per the site plan placed on record by one of the defendants. Therefore, a prima-facie case was made out in favour of appellants and balance of convenience also lies in their favour. In case, it was held that if the defendants/respondents are not restrained from causing interference or stopping the construction of the boundary walls, the appellants would suffer irreparable loss/injury.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.
Order 15A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : HC Explains the Legal Position
In Pyara Lal Taheem v Mohan Murti Shandilya [2013] GCtR 3120 (Delhi) it has been commented thus : -
Order 15A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ", being a Delhi amendment, is unambiguous in its terms that where a Defendant who is required to deposit rent as per the directions of Court, fails to do so his defence is liable to be struck off. It gives statutory expression to the law earlier explained in several decisions."
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.
On Order 12 Rule 6 : An Important View of Supreme Court
On the issue of Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an important Judgment was passed on 8 August 2000.
It has been commented at page 4 & 5 of Uttam Singh Dugal v United Bank of India [2000] GCtR 1951 (SC) thus : -
"In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the said Rule, it is stated that “where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled”."
"Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."
Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 8 August 2000.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.
Scope of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Answered in a recent Judgment passed in July 2026 S.9 of Arbitration and Concil...