Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court in Manti Devi vs. Kishun Sah, has held that no decree can be reversed or substantially varied in appeal or revision on account of misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties. In the instant case, the High Court had found that the plaintiffs had jointly petitioned to be the landlord and it is found that they are not “landlord” for the purposes of the suit in question, then jointly they have no causes of action. Setting aside the decree, the High Court further held that it materially affects the merit of the case and is accordingly not saved by Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In United Finance Corporation v. M.S.M. Haneefa, instant appeal arises before the Hon'ble Supreme Court out of order passed by High Court of Kerala allowing revision and thereby dismissing application filed by Appellant under Order XXI Rule 95 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC) on ground that, application is barred by limitation and declining direction for delivery of possession of immovable property purchased in Court auction sale to Appellant. Challenging impugned order, it was submitted that, Court auction sale does not become absolute on passing of a mere order of confirmation of sale as enjoined by Order XXI Rule 92(1) of C.P.C. but it becomes absolute only on termination of proceedings initiated to set aside the order confirming the sale. The Hon'ble court said that "In our view, the sale could not have become absolute till the proceedings in the revision in C.R.P.No.2829/2002 was over and the revision was disposed of. The judgment-debtor, as discussed earlier, ...

The Supreme Court in Harjas Rai Makhija vs..Pushparani Jain, has held that a mere concealment of material facts or non-disclosure, without intent to deceive or a bald allegation of fraud without proof and intent to deceive, would not render a decree obtained by a party as fraudulent. The appellant in this case had filed a suit in 2002 alleging that a decree was obtained by a plaintiff in another case, (which had ultimately reached the Apex Court which had confirmed the same) in a fraudulent manner and is void and not worthy of being executed. That suit was dismissed by the district court as well as high court. A bench comprising Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel rejected his contentions and observed that he had an opportunity to prove the allegation of fraud when he filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. The court said: “When there is an allegation of fraud by non-disclosure of necessary and relevant facts or concealment of material facts, it mus...

In M/s Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Celem S.A. of FOS 34320 Roujan, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court OF India were the following :- (1) Whether the order passed by the Foreign Court falls within the Exceptions to Section 13 of the CPC? (2) Whether the order passed by the Foreign Court amounts to a “decree” and the same is executable? (3) If answer to issue No. 2 is in affirmative, whether the decree for costs would fall within the ambit of Explanation 2 of Section 44A (3) of CPC and makes it inexecutable? (4) Whether interest on costs would fall within the ambit of Explanation 2 of Section 44A of CPC? (5) Whether the interest on costs can be executed in India in view of deletion of Section 35(3) of CPC? In reply the Hon'ble Court held that - 1) The principles of comity of nation demand us to respect the order of English Court. Even in regard to an interlocutory order, Indian Courts have to give due weight to such order unless it falls under any of the ex...

In cases where it is clear that the case is one of “ accidental slip or omission”, it is the duty of the court to correct the decree in tune with the actual intend of the Court and the parties. The Kerala High Court in Chandran Vs. Amruthavally viewed that there is no reason to restrict the scope of Section 152 of the Code of CPC to ‘ accidental slip or omission’ of the Court and its ministerial staff alone. Justice Sathish Ninan observed that there is nothing to indicate that the applicability of the Section is confined to cases of slip or omission by Court. It definitely takes within its compass the ‘accidental slip or omission’ of the parties also. “Essentially the question would be whether it was an instance of ‘ accidental slip or omission’. When the Court is satisfied that the mistake or error was accidental, powers vested in the Court under Section 152 of the CPC needs to be invoked to correct mistakes in the decree, especially in a case like the present one, where parties to th...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 8 R. 6-A, Or. 2 R. 2 and S. 2(2) — Order of dismissal of counterclaim when constitutes decree: Counterclaim when conclusively adjudicated on merits and dismissed by order of court, finality is attached in respect of rights of defendant, such order of dismissal gets status of decree. Order of dismissal of counterclaim on ground of being barred under Or. 2 R. 2 amounts to decree. (2015) 2 SCC 682 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6862 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6757 of 2012) Rajni Rani & Anr. ... Appellants Versus Khairati Lal & Ors. ...Respondents October 14, 2014