Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) : Important Supreme Court Judgments In 2024

1. Order 8 Rule 10 CPC | Suit Can't Be Decreed Merely On Defendant's Failure To File Written Statement If Plaintiff's Case Isn't Proved : Supreme CourtCase Title: ASMA LATEEF & ANR. V. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 39The Supreme Court held that a Court cannot pronounce judgment in a suit merely on the default of the defendant to file a written statement if the plaintiff doesn't prove his case. The Court observed that the failure on the part of the defendant to file the written statement within the time permitted by the court would not tantamount to pronouncement of judgment against the defendant, when it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the case by adducing evidence.2. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Plaint Shouldn't Be Allowed If It Alters Nature Of Suit: Supreme CourtCase Details: BASAVARAJ VERSUS INDIRA AND OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2886 OF 2012, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 178The Supreme Court held that an application seeking amendment of plaint shouldn't be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC if the amendment alters the nature of the suit. In this case, an amendment of the plaint in a partition suit was sought to include a prayer to declare an earlier compromise decree void. The Court disallowed the application, stating that the amendment altered the nature of the partition suit to a declaration suit.3. Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Only Remedy Against Compromise Decree Is Recall Application Before Court Which Recorded Compromise : Supreme CourtCase Title: NAVRATAN LAL SHARMA VERSUS RADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 985The Supreme Court ruled that if the compromise entered between the parties was not adhered to, there is no bar to filing a recall application seeking restoration of the proceedings under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). The Court emphasized that the validity and legality of a compromise agreement can be challenged even after a decree is passed.The Court rejected the argument that recording the compromise does not grant liberty to restore the appeal. Instead, it said that the right to file a restoration application is a statutory right under the CPC which cannot be curtailed merely because the compromise doesn't grant liberty to restore the appeal.4. Pendente Lite Transferee Being Stranger To Suit Can File Application Under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC Against Dispossession : Supreme CourtCase Title: RENJITH K.G. & OTHERS VERSUS SHEEBA, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 798The Supreme Court observed that a pendente lite transferee, being a stranger to the suit, can file an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) against dispossession from the suit property. Order XXI Rule 99 CPC comes to the rescue of the person who being a stranger to the suit was dispossessed by the decree holder upon the execution of the decree.5. Suit For Specific Performace Of Agreement To Sell To Be Filed In Court Having Jurisdiction Over Property : Supreme CourtCase Title: ROHIT KOCHHAR Vs. VIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 951The Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell must be instituted in the Court within whose local jurisdiction the property -which is the subject of the agreement- was situated as per Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court rejected the argument that a specific performance decree can be enforced by the personal obedience of the defendant and hence such a suit was maintainable at the place where the defendant resided/carried out business in terms of the proviso to Section 16 CPC.6. Civil Procedure Code | Appellate Court Can't Create New Case For Parties & Frame Issues Without Following Order XLI : Supreme CourtCase Title: RAMA KT. BARMAN (DIED) THR. LRS. VERSUS MD. MAHIM ALI & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 637Recently, the Supreme Court held that the Courts at the Appellate stage of civil suits cannot create a new case for the parties while framing such additional issues that were never raised in the pleadings of the parties. Apart from the already subsisting substantial questions of law, the High Court in a second appeal had framed four additional substantial questions of law. However, none of the additional issues formulated by the High Court were raised before the trial court or the appellate court and none of the parties was given any opportunity to lead the evidence on the said issues.Deploring such practice, the Court deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court in the Second Appeal and remand the same to the High Court for deciding the same afresh and in accordance with law.7. Can A Person, Awarded Monetary Compensation But Has Not Received It, File Appeal As Indigent? Supreme Court AnswersCase Title: ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA v. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 414The Court observed that even though the original ...

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) : Important Supreme Court Judgments In 2024

Yash Mittal

Tags