Important Decisions on Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Suit for Injunction - Title is Not Disputed - Effect Thereof
KRUSHNA CHANDRA BEHERA & ORS. v NARAYAN NAYAK & ORS [2025] GCtR 787 (SC) : The law is well settled that if the defendants do not dispute
the title of the plaintiffs then the suit should not fail only on
the ground that the matter has been filed only for injunction
simpliciter and no main relief in the form of declaration has been
prayed for.
Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution of Decrees and Orders - Resistance in Execution of Decree
Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal [1997] GCtR 6055 (SC) : If a decree-holder is resisted or obstructed in
execution of the decree for possession with the result
that the decree for possession could not be executed in
the normal manner by obtaining warrant for possession
under Order XXI Rule 35 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, then the decree-holder has
to move an application under Order XXI Rule 97 for
removal of such obstruction and after hearing the
decree-holder and the obstructionist the Court can pass
appropriate orders after adjudicating upon the
controversy between the parties as enjoined by Order
XXI Rule 97 sub-rule (2) read with Order XXI Rule 98.
Execution Petitions - Timely disposal - Consequences of Delay
Periyammal v. V. Rajamani [2025] GCtR 604 (SC) : 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.
Kailash v. Nankhu [2005] GCtR 6056 (SC) : Section 129 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is another source of power of High Court to make rules
to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.
This will include election petitions also as they are tried in the original civil
jurisdiction of the High Court.
Vidyabai v. Padmalatha [2008] GCtR 6057 (SC) : By reason of the Code of Civil (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act
22 of 2002), the Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to Order VI Rule 17
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is couched in a mandatory form. The court’s jurisdiction to allow
such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor
are satisfied, viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence
the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the
trial.
Jaichand v. Sahnulal [2024] GCtR 3226 (SC) : 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 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 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.
Nuslie Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties [2019] GCtR 6058 (SC) : There is a difference
between the existence of jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction.
The expression jurisdiction has been used in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at several places in
different contexts and takes colour from the context in which it has
been used. The existence of jurisdiction is reflected by the fact of
amenability of the judgment to attack in the collateral proceedings. If
the court has an inherent lack of jurisdiction, its decision is open to
attack as a nullity.
Pruthvirajsinh N Jadeja(D) By Lrs. v Jayeshkumar Chhakaddasm Shah [2019] GCtR 6058 (SC) : In this case, application was wrongly filed under Order 1 Rule 10 instead of Order XXII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was held that mere nonmentioning of an
incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to
pass such an order is available with the court.
State of Haryana v. Amin Lal [2024] GCtR 2966 (SC) : Under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allegations of fact not denied specifically are deemed to be admitted. Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under S. 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence.
Sejal Glass Ltd v. Navilan Merchants Pvt Ltd [2017] GCtR 651 (SC) : What is important to remember is that the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 refers to the "plaint" which necessarily means the plaint as a whole. It is only where the plaint as a whole does not disclose a cause of action that Order VII Rule 11 of Code springs into being and interdicts a suit from proceeding. If only a portion of the plaint, as opposed to the plaint as a whole is to be struck out, Order VI Rule 16 of the Code would apply.
Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi [2016] GCtR 4287 (SC) : The first appellate court,
under Section 96 of The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is the last
court of facts unless the findings are based on evidence or are
perverse.
Gurvachan Kaur v. Salikram [2009] GCtR 6061 (SC) : In this case, where a suit for eviction was there, it was held that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first
appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse.
Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal [1999] GCtR 6062 (SC) : Now under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after the 1976 Amendment, it is essential for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law. In certain exceptional cases, Supreme Court will not hesitate to interfere, if interference is called for and if the High court has failed to interfere under section 100. The factual background of this case was in respect of redemption of a usufructuary mortgage.
Cuddalore Powergen Corpn Ltd v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd [2025] GCtR 788 (SC) : The object of both the Rules 1 and 2 of Order II of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to prevent the multiplicity of suits. Order II Rule 2 is founded on the principle that a person should not be vexed twice for one and the same cause. It is a rule which is directed against two evils i.e., the splitting up of claims and the splitting up of remedies. What Order II Rule 2 requires is the inclusion of the whole claim arising in respect of one and the same cause of action, in one suit. However, this must not be misunderstood to mean that every suit shall include every claim or every cause of action which the plaintiff may have against the defendant. On a more careful perusal of the provision, it can be seen that Order II Rule 2(1) reads as - “every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action”, whereas the words used in Order II Rule 2(3) are “the same cause of action”. Order II Rule 2(1) requires every suit to include the whole of the claim to which the plaintiff is entitled to in respect of a particular cause of action. However, the plaintiff has an option to relinquish any part of his claim for the purpose of bringing the suit within the jurisdiction of any court.
Rathnavati v. Kavita Ganashamdas [2014] GCtR 6063 (SC) : One of the basic requirements for successfully invoking the plea of Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is that the defendant of the second suit must be able to show that the second suit was also in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based. The submission that since both the suits were based on identical pleadings and when cause of action to sue for relief of specific performance of agreement was available to the plaintiff prior to filing of the first suit, the second suit was hit by bar contained in Order II Rule 2 of Code, 1908 is not acceptable.