Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976

The dispute concerned a property on GT Road, Shahabad Markanda, where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had illegally broken the lintel of the first‑floor roof and constructed a staircase to take possession of their house. The trial court and the first appellate court, after considering the evidence including …

The decree‑holders obtained possession of a suit property under a decree of specific performance. Respondent No.1 (Shamsher Singh) claimed he had acquired title by adverse possession and filed an application under Order XXI Rules 98‑100 of the CPC seeking to be put back into possession. The executing court rejected the…

The wife filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, and the trial court passed an ex‑parte decree in her favour on 6‑12‑1979. The husband appealed the decree under Section 96 of the CPC and sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the appeal was dismissed on t…

Randhir Kaur filed a suit for specific performance of a 2004 agreement to sell 193 kanals 18 marlas of land, having paid earnest money of Rs.13.5 lakh through her son Dhanwant Singh. The trial court decreed specific performance, but the High Court, in a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, set aside…

The case concerned a decree for possession of 2 bighas 17 biswas of agricultural land granted in 1953, of which only 10 biswas were actually delivered and the remaining 2 bighas 7 biswas were said to be in symbolic possession. The decree holder later sought delivery of certain "kothas" (structures) marked EFGH on the s…

The appellants, Vaishno Devi Construction and others, claimed to be assignees of a decree holder (the late S.N. Kanungo) and sought execution of arbitration awards turned into decrees under Order XXI Rule 16 of the CPC. The dispute turned on whether the Explanation added to Order XXI Rule 16 by the 1976 Amendment Act, …

The respondents filed a suit for partition of property in 2004. The appellant filed her written statement in 2006 and later discovered a 1993 will that she claimed affected the ownership of the suit property. On 1 March 2007, after the trial had commenced and a witness had been examined, she applied under Order VIII Ru…

The appellants filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts which was decreed by the lower appellate court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court entertained a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, set aside the decree, and did so without framing a substantial question of law as required by…

The Supreme Court entertained a contempt petition filed by C. Elumalai & Ors. alleging that the respondents, A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr., had willfully violated the Court's order dated 19 March 2007 which directed the Madras High Court to dispose of a suit within six months and refrain from creating any third‑party rights…

The plaintiff's father, Seth Lachhman Dass Gupta, had a contract with the Government for supplying charcoal and, due to a price escalation clause, served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) demanding the higher price. He died before filing a suit, and his three sons filed the suit as his lega…

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, partition and injunction against several defendants, one of whom, Virendra Kumar, died without contesting the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit as abated for failure to substitute the deceased's legal representatives. On appeal, the first appellate court and the High …

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and the defendant filed a written statement followed by a counter‑claim. The trial court allowed the counter‑claim, but the High Court quashed it, prompting a reference to the Supreme Court on the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. The Court held that Ru…

The respondent filed a suit for eviction in the Small Causes Court and submitted an affidavit as his examination‑in‑chief under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The appellant objected, contending that because the decree was appealable, Order 18 Rule 5 should apply and the evidence should be taken o…

The plaintiff, U.R. Virupakshaiah, filed a partition suit alleging that the disputed lands were joint family property. The High Court, hearing a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, framed an additional substantial question of law concerning the existence of a joint Hindu family while dictati…

Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society filed revision petitions under Section 115 of the CPC against interim orders of a subordinate court. The High Courts dismissed the petitions, holding that the 1999 amendment to Section 115 made such interim orders non‑maintainable for revision. The Society appealed, arguing that the am…

The case arose from a suit for perpetual injunction where the plaintiff claimed ownership of land by natural succession, while the defendants relied on a Will that the trial court held to be suspicious and invalid. The trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiff was set aside by the first appellate court, which gra…

The plaintiffs filed a title suit in 1984 which was dismissed by the trial court but later allowed by the first appellate court. The defendants appealed, and the High Court set aside the first appellate court's decree, holding that several defendants had died during the pendency of the first appeal and their legal heir…

The appellants and respondents, who were neighbours, disputed the status of an 80‑yard passage. The original suit for perpetual injunction ended in a compromise decree that allegedly granted the appellants exclusive rights over the passage, which was shown as a public road in municipal plans. The appellants later sued …

The plaintiffs, A.K. Ghosh & Co., filed a commercial suit for unpaid dues and the defendants filed a counter‑claim. The defendants served the counter‑claim on 18 July 2023, but the plaintiffs sought leave to file a written statement only on 15 March 2024, well beyond the statutory period. The Calcutta High Court reject…

Jagraj Singh married Birpal Kaur in 1993; the wife later filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging desertion and cruelty. The trial court ruled it lacked territorial jurisdiction but nonetheless decided the merits, denying divorce. The High Court, invoking Section 23(2) of the Act, ordered b…

The Supreme Court considered five civil revision petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) that were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court examined whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC ove…

The plaintiffs sued for a share in a property claiming it was a sub‑tarward asset governed by the marumakkathayam customary law. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the property was not partible, the parties were governed by the makkathayam law and the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim. The Hig…

The auction of a judgment-debtor's property was held on 26 July 1985 and the highest bid was accepted. The judgment-debtor deposited the bid amount on 29 August 1985 and filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 to set aside the sale, followed by another application under Rule 89 on 6 September 1985 with the balance…

The appellants were served summons but filed their written statement two days after the 90‑day deadline prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The trial court nevertheless accepted the statement, a decision challenged before the Karnataka High Court on the ground that the provision was ma…

The appellant filed a regular second appeal alleging that the appeal was decided without framing a substantial question of law, relying on decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the 1976 Amendment Act…

The case concerned an auction of land owned by Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd., which was mortgaged to a bank and later assigned to ARCIL. The Tahsildar conducted the auction without observing the mandatory 30‑day notice period and issued the sale certificate and possession to the appellant, Al‑Can Export Pvt. Ltd., …

The decree‑holder, who had purchased a mortgaged property at a court auction, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC for delivery of possession more than a year after the sale was confirmed. The judgment‑debtors opposed, arguing that the application was barred by the one‑year limitation in Article 134 of the …

The Supreme Court examined whether an objection to limitation can be raised as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977, and how that provision interacts with Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC. The Court held that Section 9A, by virtue of its non‑obstante clause, c…

Santosh Hazari filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and a permanent injunction against Purushottam Tiwar, alleging dispossession of a portion of his land. The trial court decreed in favour of Hazari, rejecting the defendant's claim of adverse possession and the defence of limitation. The Additi…

The case involved a partnership firm that owned a newspaper, which was allegedly transferred to a newly incorporated company. A settlement deed purporting to resolve private disputes among the partners was recorded by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a writ petition, even though the deceased appellant, Dwarka Prasad Ag…

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board allotted residential plots to low‑income applicants in 1963. In 1975 it issued fresh demands for additional amounts covering excess compensation for land acquisition and development charges. T.N. Ganapathy filed a suit in representative capacity on behalf of all low‑income allottees seeking…

Ganpat Giri appealed against a decree-holder who, after a court‑ordered sale of Giri's property, purchased the property without the express permission of the executing court required under Order 21 Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing court set aside the sale under Rule 72(3) and the District Judge aff…

Ram Sarup, dismissed from service, filed a suit as an indigent person which was dismissed. He appealed to the Delhi High Court as a pauper under Rule 1 of Order 44, CPC, seeking permission to appeal without paying court fees. The High Court dismissed the application by a one‑word order and also rejected a subsequent re…

The plaintiff, Som Dev, claimed a right of pre-emption over a half‑share of immovable property, relying on a decree dated 10‑10‑1980 that recognised a family settlement whereby co‑owner Sheo Ram had relinquished his share in favour of the plaintiff and his brother. The defendants argued that the decree created a new ri…

The appellants obtained a decree in England for a sum of about Rs. 3.6 crore and sought execution in Delhi, leading to attachment of the respondent's immovable property. While the attachment was pending, the respondent filed a suit in Delhi seeking a declaration that the foreign decree was void and obtained a stay of e…

Patel Roadways Ltd, a carrier with its principal office in Bombay and subordinate offices elsewhere, was sued in Madras courts for loss of goods transported from its Tamil Nadu and Madras branches to Delhi. The carrier claimed that a clause in its contracts stipulated that any dispute must be heard only in Bombay court…

The plaintiff, the owner of a premises, sued the defendant, the son of the original tenant, for recovery of possession. In his written statement the defendant unequivocally admitted that his father was the sole tenant and that the plaintiff was the owner, and that rent had been paid till May 2021. Relying on these admi…

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority between direct‑recruits and promotees in the Gujarat Civil Service (Deputy Collectors) after the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. Direct recruits argued that promotees appointed to ex‑cadre and temporary posts between 1960‑62 were not "regularly appointed" and therefore should …

The widow of Pravinlal Madhvani sued the Madhvani brothers for partition of a tea estate, accounts of a family partnership and mesne profits, seeking 6% interest. While the appeal of the preliminary decree was pending, the High Court allowed an amendment to raise the interest rate to 13% and awarded interest at prevail…

The plaintiff obtained an ex‑parte decree in a title suit. The defendant filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to set aside the decree, and subsequently filed an appeal against the decree with a condonation application. Both the petition …

The respondent filed a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of Euro 757,885.42. The defendant raised triable issues and admitted part of the claim; the trial court gave unconditional leave to defend. The Karnataka High Court modified this to conditional leave, allowing defence of Euro 3…