Failure To Seek Recount During Counting Alone Does Not Justify Rejecting An Election Petition: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld an Election Tribunal's decision refusing to reject an election petition merely because the election petitioner had not sought recounting of votes during the counting process. The Court held that specific allegations of discrepancies in vote tabulation and manipulation of election records raised triable issues which required adjudication on evidence. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by the returned candidate challenging the...

Failure To Deposit Stamp Duty Within 15 Days Renders Auction Sale Void, Executing Court Cannot Extend Deadline: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that failure to deposit the prescribed stamp duty within 15 days of an auction renders the sale void, and the executing court cannot extend the deadline by invoking its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).It further observed that under Order XXI Rule 85 CPC, as applicable in Andhra Pradesh, the auction purchaser...

Family Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Decide Maintenance Modification Pleas Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a Family Court cannot decide an application under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), seeking modification of maintenance and rent orders originally passed by a Magistrate. The Court ruled that Section 26 of the DV Act, which enables Civil and Family Courts to grant reliefs under Sections 18 to 22, does not...

'Decree-Holder's Rights Must Not Be Rendered Illusory': Allahabad High Court Says Article 227 Can Prevent Undue Delay In Execution Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court has held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be exercised to direct an executing court to decide an objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 within a fixed period, without the High Court going into the merits of the objection. Such a direction, it held, neither curtails the...

Supreme Court Upholds Condonation Of 423-Day Delay In Plea To Set Aside Ex Parte Decree On Condition To Deposit Rs 75 Lakh

The Supreme Court has recently upheld a Madras High Court Division Bench's order condoning a delay of 423 days in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside an ex-parte decree. It also modified the condition imposed for condonation, holding that the Rs 75,000 which was directed to be paid to the plaintiff must instead be deposited with...

S. 96 CPC | Non-Parties Can Challenge Consent Decree With Leave If Their Rights Are Affected: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 30) reiterated that there's no bar to file an appeal against the consent decree by a stranger if it shows that the consent decree prejudicially affects his rights or interests. Also, a leave to appeal cannot be denied to such a stranger merely because he was not party to a consent decree, if shown that the consent decree materially affects his rights...

Application Under Provincial Insolvency Act Cannot Be Dismissed For Lack Of Verification In Affidavit: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that the mere non-mention of solemn verification in an affidavit, despite the presence of solemn affirmation, ipso facto does not warrant rejection of an application as such a defect is curable. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 266]In view of this, the court set aside an order of the insolvency court dismissing an application seeking to set aside an...

Order 21 Rule 97 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Direct Third Party To File Separate Suit To Challenge Decree : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a person who is not a party to a civil decree can resist its execution by filing an application under Order XXI Rules 97–101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), claiming an independent right, title or interest in the property. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment upholding the...

Prescribed Authority Under UP Ceiling Act Not A Civil Court, Its Orders Are Amenable To Article 226: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is not a Civil Court and that an order passed by it can be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It held that the powers and privileges of a Civil Court conferred on the Prescribed Authority by Section 37 of the Act do...

HP High Court Refuses To Reject Suit Challenging Cooperative Society Election, Says Defence Cannot Be Considered Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that while deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, courts must confine their examination to the averments in the plaint and the documents accompanying it, without considering the defence raised by the defendants. Dismissing a petition challenging the rejection of such...

Know The Law | When Can A Plaint Be Amended After Trial Has Begun? Supreme Court Explains Order VI Rule 17 CPC

The Supreme Court has recently explained as to when a plaint be amended under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) once the trial has begun, while allowing the amendment subject to costs of Rs 25,000.A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan explained the law while setting aside orders of the trial court and the Orissa High Court refusing an amendment. Order...

Counterclaim Need Not Concern Same Property As Suit: Bombay High Court Restores Claim, Says Plaintiff's Exclusion Request Is Not Binding

The Bombay High Court has held that a counterclaim need not relate to the same property or cause of action involved in the plaintiff's suit, while restoring a counterclaim excluded by the trial court. The Court observed that the discretion vested in the Court under Order VIII Rule 6-C CPC is required to be exercised by the Court in a judicious manner to avoid multiplicity of proceedings...