Code Of Civil Procedure (CPC): All India Annual Digest 2025

Supreme CourtOrder XLI Rule 27 CPC | Appellate Courts Must First Examine Pleadings Before Allowing Additional Evidence : Supreme CourtCause Title: IQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. VERSUS ABDUL SHUKOORCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 831The Supreme Court held that appellate courts cannot permit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC unless such evidence is supported by proper pleadings. It emphasized that before allowing additional evidence at the appellate stage, courts must first examine whether the party had pleaded the factual foundation for such evidence at the trial stage, as evidence inconsistent with or unrelated to the pleadings is inadmissible and serves no legal purpose.In the present case, arising from a 1995 agreement to sell, the Court found that the High Court erred in allowing the defendant to introduce new documentary evidence to raise a defence not pleaded earlier, and in reversing the trial court's decree on that basis. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Bar Not Applicable To Party Who Purchased Suit Property Not From Judgment-Debtor : Supreme CourtCause Title: TAHIR V. ISANI VS. MADAN WAMAN CHODANKAR, (SINCE DECEASED) NOW THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES & ORS, Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 845The Supreme Court clarified that the bar under Order XXI Rule 102 of the CPC, which restricts pendente lite transferees of a judgment-debtor from resisting execution of a decree, does not apply to a person who has purchased the suit property from a third party who was not a party to the original suit. The Court held that such transferees are entitled to invoke Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC and raise objections to execution, subject to satisfaction of the statutory conditions.In the present case, the appellant had purchased the property from M/s Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., which had derived title from the original owner well before the suit, and not from the judgment-debtors. Therefore, even though the appellant's purchase occurred during the pendency of the suit, he could not be treated as a transferee pendente lite of the judgment-debtor, and the bar under Rule 102 was inapplicable. Setting aside the Bombay High Court's decision, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the executing court to adjudicate the appellant's objections in accordance with law, explaining that Rule 102 is intended to prevent judgment-debtors and their transferees from frustrating decrees, not to deny protection to bona fide purchasers claiming through independent third parties.Res Judicata Can't Be Ground To Reject Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC : Supreme CourtCase : Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and anotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 698The Supreme Court held that the plea of res judicata cannot be a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the issue of res judicata involves mixed questions of fact and law which must be decided only after a full-fledged trial.Setting aside the Madras High Court's order that had upheld rejection of the plaint on this ground, the Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that such an objection cannot be summarily adjudicated at the threshold stage.The Court observed that similarity of causes of action and the applicability of res judicata can be determined only after examining pleadings and documents from the earlier suit during trial. The Court emphasized that res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in an application seeking rejection of the plaint. While expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on whether the earlier ex parte decree would ultimately operate as res judicata, the Supreme Court held that such an enquiry was impermissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, especially in light of the specific averments made in the plaint, and accordingly allowed the appeal.Failure To Serve S.80 CPC Notice Nullifies Decree ; Executing Court Bound To Consider Plea Of Nullity : Supreme CourtCause Title: ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION VERSUS VIGYAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 772The Supreme Court held that failure to serve the mandatory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure before instituting a suit against a state-owned entity renders the resulting decree a nullity, which can be challenged even at the execution stage under Section 47 CPC. The Court clarified that while an executing court cannot go beyond the decree, it is duty-bound to examine objections questioning the decree's enforceability on grounds of jurisdictional defects. In the present case, the appellant was added as a party without being served the mandatory Section 80 notice, yet a money recovery decree was passed against it. Setting aside the findings of the executing court and the High Court, the Supreme Court ruled that...

Code Of Civil Procedure (CPC): All India Annual Digest 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Code Of Civil Procedure (CPC): All India Annual Digest 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers