CPC
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Supreme Court Explains Parameters To Decide Application For Additional Evidence
While reiterating that an application seeking the production of additional evidence at an appellate stage needs to be decided on its own merit before delivering a judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down the parameters to be followed while dealing with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria laid down the following parameters:...
Mediated Settlement Agreement Between Landlord & Tenant For Payment Of Rent Arrears Is Executable: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that a compromise agreement entered into between a landlord and a tenant regarding payment of arrears of rent during a court-referred mediation is executable before a civil court having pecuniary jurisdiction. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 435]The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed that the compromise agreement is in...
Plea Of Res Judicata Need Not Be Decided At Threshold In Small Causes Suits: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a defendant in a suit before a Court of Small Causes cannot insist, as a matter of right, that his plea of res judicata be decided at the threshold. It held that whether such a plea is taken up first depends on the nature of the enquiry it calls for, and where it turns on disputed facts, it must be decided along with the rest of the suit.Section 11 of...
'Wholly Unwarranted': Kerala High Court Criticizes Trial Court's Adverse Observations About Lawyer's Drafting Skills
The Kerala High Court recently criticized a trial court's adverse observations regarding the skills of a lawyer in drafting a petition before it. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 433]Justice Easwaran S. opined that trial court's remarks about the lawyer's competence was completely uncalled for and the same required judicial scrutiny:“the manner in which consideration was undertaken by the trial court...
Mere Marking Of Document As Exhibit Is Not Proof Of Contents : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 7) held that objections to the admissibility of a document that is prima facie relevant to the adjudication of a suit cannot ordinarily be decided at the threshold stage merely because the document has been exhibited. The Court said that a mere exhibition of a document, during the initial stage of a trial, does not amount to proof of its contents; as...
Res-Judicata Bars Different Trustees From Relitigating Same Trust Property Dispute: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that a trust application regarding a dispute over trust property cannot be maintained if the dispute has already been conclusively decided in an earlier proceeding, even if the subsequent suit is brought by a different set of trustees. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 213]Justice JC Doshi was hearing an appeal by trustees of Shri Agarwal Samaj Trust, challenging the order...
Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Parameters On Recall Of Witness : Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 4) reiterated that the power of the Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC only permits recall of witnesses for examination by the Court itself, not for cross-examination by either of the parties “…the scope and object of Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC, was to enable the court to clarify doubts regarding evidence led by the party. It was further stated that...
Karnataka High Court Upholds State's 120-Day Limit For Written Statements But Preserves Judicial Discretion In 'Exceptional' Cases
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the state's amendment prescribing a 120-day outer limit for filing written statements. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274]However, the single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has 'read down' the provision to ensure that civil courts retain a 'narrow and exceptional' discretion to accept written statements beyond the 120 days...
Subsequent Suit Arising From Same Document Should Ordinarily Be Heard By Court Hearing Earlier Suit: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that where two suits between the same parties arise out of the same document and are pending before different courts of competent jurisdiction, the court in which the earlier proceeding is pending is ordinarily the more appropriate forum. It held that the subsequently instituted suit may be transferred to it under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,...
S.152 CPC | Court Can Direct Correction Of Wrong Survey Number In Decree If Identity Of Property Is Undisputed: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where an incorrect survey number has been mentioned due to an accidental slip, the Court can exercise its power under Section 152 CPC to correct the mistake even after the decree is passed, provided there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 165]Cautioning against misuse of the jurisdiction, the Court held...