1908

The Supreme Court held that High Courts lacked the jurisdiction to grant an interim order at that stage of the second appeal without framing the substantial question of law as required by Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The case originated from a suit filed by C. Yashoda, the respondent, before a Trial Court, […]

When in earlier suit rights of co-defendants in respect of suit land were neither in issue, nor ever adjudicated, held, principle of res judicata will not be applicable. Ratio Decidendi- The earlier suit (Suit No. 8/64) dealt with Maharani’s claim over the entire estate and did not adjudicate the specific claims of the appellant or

Held, This elucidation of the law is unexceptionable. It is undeniable that an Executing Court can construe a decree if it is ambiguous. However, as in the facts of the case herein, this cannot result in additions (to the terms of the consent, embodied in the email dated 28.03.2019) which were not agreed upon by

Principles clarified relating to validity of rejection of application for setting aside of ex parte eviction decree on ground that amount towards further use and occupation of suit shop not deposited. Held, Apart from the above, where we find that the Trial Court and the High Court had taken too technical and impractical a view

The issue in the first suit was limited only as to whether the respondent-plaintiff has a right to construct the latrine in the passage. The issue as to whether the respondent-plaintiff was exclusively entitled to possession thereof did not fall for consideration in the earlier round, whereas in the third round, the said issue directly

The fact that in the suit, the legal representative was not substituted would not result in the consequence which the High Court has found in the impugned order having regard to the declaration of the law made by this Court. In other words, in view of the fact that the legal representative has been brought

Instead of depositing entire decretal amount as directed by High court, the deposit as directed by State Government of Rs 45,00,000 can be taken as sufficient compliance of direction issued by the High Court? Held, deposit of Rs 4500000 would meet the ends of justice.  Thus direction of High Court to deposit entire decretal sum

Legality of refusal of application to file suit as indigent person, on ground of res judicata and lack of cause of action, determined. When having prima facie found that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by res judicata it cannot be said that the Trial Court committed

The mistakes committed by the High Court were manifold. First, the   High   Court   framed   a   question   which   was   actually   a question of fact which involved appreciation of evidence and not a substantial question of law. As a consequence, the answer given by the High Court was only a finding of fact. Next, the High Court

Condonation of delay in filing of application for setting aside ex parte decree- necessity of proper examination of whether ex parte decree was justified, and whether sufficient cause had been shown for the delay.  Proper forum for challenging refusal to set aside ex parte decree under Or. 9 R. 13, ascertained. With the refusal of