Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] is an important law as far Civil law practitioners are concerned. Various High Courts have interpreted many provisions of the Code differently. The following are some of the important judgments delivered by the Supreme Court which deals with CPC.Appellate Court's Jurisdiction Under Section 96 CPC Involves Rehearing On Questions Of Law As Well As Fact: Supreme Court[Case: Manjula v. Shyamsundar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 52]A bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant observed that an appellate court's jurisdiction under Section 96 of CPC involves a rehearing of appeal on questions of law as well as fact. It noted that the provision provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction and Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC provides the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. The bench said that the judgment of the appellate court shall state (a) points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.Appellate Court Cannot Permit Production Of Additional Evidence Unless & Until Procedure Under Order XLI Rules 27-29 CPC Is Followed: Supreme Court[Case: HS Goutham v. Rama Murthy; Citation: LL 2021 SC 84]A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed that unless and until the procedure under Order XLI Rules 27, 28 and 29 are followed, the parties to the appeal cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence and/or the appellate court is not justified to direct the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred or any other subordinate court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the Appellate Court.Timeline For Pronouncement Of Judgment Prescribed In Order XX CPC Does Not Apply To High Courts: Supreme Court[Case: SJVNL v. M/s CCC HIM JV & Anr.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 87]A Bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that timeline for pronouncement of judgment prescribed in Order XX of CPC does not apply to the High Court."It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgment is contemplated either under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as the pronouncement of the judgment is a part of justice dispensation system, it has to be without delay," the bench held.Parties Who Privately Agree To Settle Disputes Without Court Intervention U/s 89 CPC Also Entitled To Refund Of Court Fee: Supreme Court[Case: High Court of Judicature at Madras v. MC Subramaniam; Citation: LL 2021 SC 97]A bench comprising Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran held that the parties who privately agree to settle their dispute outside the modes contemplated under Section 89 of CPC are also entitled to refund of Court fees. "The narrow interpretation of Section 89 of CPC and Section 69A of the 1955 Act sought to be imposed by the Petitioner would lead to an outcome wherein parties who are referred to a Mediation Centre or other centres by the Court will be entitled to a full refund of their court fee; whilst parties who similarly save the Court's time and resources by privately settling their dispute themselves will be deprived of the same benefit, simply because they did not require the Court's interference to seek a settlement," the Court observed.Order VII Rue 11 CPC: Court Has Inherent Power To See That Frivolous Or Vexatious Litigations Are Not Allowed To Consume Its Time: Supreme Court[Case: K. Akbar Ali v. K. Umar Khan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 114]A Division Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta observed that the provisions of Order VII Rue 11 [Rejection of Plaint] are not exhaustive and the Court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the Court.The bench observed that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the question before the Court is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law, on the face of the averments contained in the plaint itself. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC the Court is not to look into the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiff or the defence raised by the defendant, it added.Application Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC Can Be Allowed Only When Sufficient Cause Is Made Out To Set Aside Ex Parte Decree: Supreme Court[Case: Subodh Kumar v. Shamim Ahmed; Citation: LL 2021 SC 134]A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy observed that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be automatically granted and can be allowed only when sufficient cause is made out to set aside the ex parte decree.Second Appeal: Judgment Should Not Be Interfered With By High Court Unless There Is A Substantial Question Of Law, Reiterates...

Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags