consolidated cases- cpc

7/25/2019 Consolidated Cases- CPC

1/37

Case Section

Facts Issue Observation Decision

GundajiSatwajiShinde

v.RamachandraBhikaji

Joshi(IR!"#" SC$%&'

Section 9

Plaintif sued orspecicperormance o acontract or sale

o agriculturalland in the civilcourt anddeendantappeared andraised acontention in Sec63 o the TenancyAct the plaintifbeing not anagriculturist, he isbarred rompurchasing theland Such anissue being !ithinthe e"clusive

#urisdiction o the$amlatadar%competentauthority set upunder the

Tenancy Act&

'hether theplaintif is anagriculturistor not, !ould

the civilcourt have

#urisdictionto decide theissue or the(ivil (ourt!ould haveto reer theissue underSec )*+A othe TenancyAct to theauthorityconstitutedunder theAct, viMamlatdar.

-bservations.There can be a civil suitproperly constituted!hich the civil court !ill

have #urisdiction toentertain but therein anissue may arise upon acontest !hen contentionsare raised by the partyagainst !hom the civilsuit is led /pon suchcontest, issues !ill haveto be determined tonally dispose o the suit0 any such issue arise!hich is re1uired to besettled, decided or dealt!ith by the competentauthority under the

Tenancy Act, even i itarises in civil suit, the

#urisdiction o the (ivil(ourt to settle, decideand deal !ith the same!ould be barred by theprovision contained inSec )* and the (ivil(ourt !ill have to ta2erecourse to the provisioncontained in Sec )*+A orreerence o the issue tothe competent authorityunder the Tenancy Act

The court urtherobserved that a suit orspecic perormance o acontract or sale o land iscogniable by the civilcourt and its #urisdiction!ould not be oustedmerely because contract,i enorced, !ould violatesome provisions o the

Tenancy Act, 0 contract!hen enorced !ouldviolate some provisions othe Tenancy Act it may bethat the competent

0 there is anissue !hich hto be settled,decided or de

!ith by thecompetentauthority undthe Tenancy Athe #urisdictioo the (ivil(ourt,not!ithstandthe act that iarises in anincidentalmanner in a csuit, !ill bebarred and it!ill have to breerred to thcompetentauthority undthe Tenancy A

Thereore couoverruled thedecision o thigh (ourt,upholding the

#urisdiction othe (ivil courdeal !ith theissue instead reerring it tothe $amlatda


2/37

authority under theTenancy Act, it may bethat the competentauthority under thetenancy Act may proceedto ta2e action as

permissible under the la!but the (ourt cannotreuse to enorce thecontract

IndianBank v.)aharashtraStateCo*o+erative)arketin, Fed.-td.(AIR1998 SC1952)

Section 45+esSub

7udice

8an2 ledSummary Suit inthe 8ombay igh(ourt under -rder3 o the (odeagainst the:ederation orobtaining adecree or s;,96,*9,465alleging that thesaid amount hasbecomerecoverable undera ,>4))prior to the lingo the summarysuit

'hether thebar toproceed !ithtrial osubse1uentlyinstitutedsuit,contained inSec45 isapplicable tosummarysuit ledunder -rder3 o the(ode

The !ord ?trial@ in Section45, in its !idest sense!ould include all theproceedings rom thestage o institution o aplaint in a civil case to thestage o naldetermination by a

#udgments and a decreeo the (ourt o!ever, invie! o the ob#ect andnature o the provisionand the airly settled legalposition !ith respect topassing o interlocutoryorders it has to be statedthat the !ord trialB inSec 45 is not used in its!idest sense(onsidering the ob#ects oboth the provisions ieSec 45 and - 3, !iderinterpretation o the !ord?trial@ is not called or

The !ord trialB in Sec 45in the conte"t o summarysuit cannot be interpretedto mean the entireproceedings starting !iththe institution o the suitby lodging a plaint 0n asummary suit the trialBreally begins ater the(ourtC7udge grants leaveto the deendants tocontest the suit

Thereore, the(ourtC7udge dealing !iththe summary suit can

The bar toproceed !ithtrial osubse1uentlyinstituted suitcontained inSec 45 is notapplicable tosummary suitled under-rder 3 o th(P(


3/37

proceed up to the stage ohearing the summons or

#udgement and passingthe #udgement in avouro the plaintif i %a& thedeendant has not applied

or leave to deend or isuch application has beenmade and reused or i %b&the deendant !ho ispermitted to deend ailsto comply !ith theconditions on !hich leaveto deend is granted

&.Itikar

hmedv. S/ed)eharban 0i1IR!"##SC #2"

Section 44+Res

judicatabetweencodeendant

There !as conDicto interest amongco+plaintifs 0nthe previous suit,0shta1 Ahmed,E:atima, $Ali%(o+plaintifs&instituted a suitagainst themortgagee,relating to shareso the latter t!oin mortgagedpropertiesin thatsuit it !asdecided that only0shta1 Ahmed hadtitle to theproperties andother t!o had notitle The 1uestiono title !hich !asin dispute !asconclusivelydetermined by acompetent court0n the later suitthe dispute !as inbet!een 0shta1Ahmed on theone hand and E:atima and $ Alion the other handregarding thesame property

3hetherear0ierdecision othe courtre,ardin,the tit0e othe4ro+ert/ in5uestionwou0do+erate asres*

judicata inbetweenthe +arties.

The S( held that iollo!ing ; principles!ere satised then it!ould operate as res+

#uducata+4&+There must be aconDict o interestbet!een the parties>&+0t is necessary todecide that conDict inorder to give relie anddetermine the issue in thecase3&+That such a conDict hasbeen conclusivelydetermined;5&+The (o+deendants!ere necessary or properparties in the ormer suit

The S( held tsince the ourconditions !esatised in thcase and thusthe principle res #udicata hto operate


4/37

The matter !asreerred to thearbitrator

2.State

o 6.4.v.7awab8ussain(AIR1977 SC1680)

Constructive

ResJudicata

Section 44,F"pla

nation 0G+(onstructivees#udicata

0n this case, thepetitioner !asdismissed rom

service e led a!rit petition onthe ground odenial oopportunity obeing heard andthat the actionta2en against him!as mala deAter thatdismissal opetition he ledanother petitionalleging that he!as appointed bythe 0nspectorHeneral o Policeand he !asdismissed by theIeputy 0H ealleged that thelatter !as notempo!ered todismiss him andthereore hisorder o dismissal!as by a person!ho did not havethe po!er to doso e urthercontended that,he !as notaforded areasonableopportunity tomeet the caseagainst him in thedepartmentalin1uiry and thatthe action ta2enagainst !as malade

'hether adecision othe igh

(ourt onmerits on acertainmatter atercontest, in a!rit petitionunder Art>>6 o the(onstitution,operates asres #udicatain a regularsuit !ithrespect tothe samematterbet!een thesameparties

The provisions o Sec 44(P( are not e"haustive!ith respect to an earlier

decision operating as res#udicata bet!een thesame parties on the samematter in controversy in asubse1uent regular suitand that on the generalprinciple o res #udicata,any previous decision ona matter in controversy,decided ater ull contestor ater afording a airopportunity to the partiesto prove their case by a(ourt competent todecide it, !ill operate asres #udicata in asubse1uent regular suit 0tis not necessary that thecourt deciding the matterormerly be a competentto decide the subse1uentsuit or that the ormerproceeding and thesubse1uent suit have thesame sub#ect+matter

The plea ta2ein thesubse1uent s

!as animportant ple!hich !as!ithin the2no!ledge othe petitioner!hen he ledthe previous!rit petition athis plea coul!ell have beeta2en in thesame petition

%. C.. -> 0n the present 'hether ->, The principle underlying 0 second suit


5/37

Ba0akrishnanv.Commissioner

1Cor+n.o)adras(AIR200!A"120)

ule>

case, the prayerin the !ritpetition is or theissuance o a !rito mandamusdirecting the

respondent torestore thepossession o thepremises to thepetitioner, alicensee 0t isadmitted act thatthe petitioner hasled original suitor mandatoryin#unction orestoration o

possession to himo the premises,!hich !asdismissed and!hich is also thesub#ect matter othe !rit petition

> appliesto the !ritpetition ornotJ

->, > being based uponpublic policy, a person!ho les a suit see2ingcertain relie in respect oa cause o action isprecluded rom instituting

another suit or see2ingother relies in respect osame cause o actionunder ->, > Therelin1uishment o part oclaim is not permissibleand omission to sue orone o several relies isalso prohibited is attracte!ith e1ual vigin this situatioalso

9o+ic $ :++ea0s

$.

Chunni0a0 v.)ehtav.Centur/S+inin,and)anuacturin,

Co.-td.1IR!"$SC!&!2

Sectio

n 455%SecondAppeal&

$uch beore the

e"piry ocontractualperiod, therespondentcompanyremoved theappellants asmanaging agent

The appellantsled a suit in the8ombay igh(ourt (laiming

damages The (decided in avouro the respondentcompany TheAppellants movedto S( by specialleave

'hether

thecontructiono adocumento title!hich isoundationo the rightso thepartiesraises a

1uestion ola! and theinterpretation o suchdocumentraises asubstantial1uestion o

a) Not disputed that this is a

Question of law since whatApellent is challenging is theinterpretation of someclauses of a document. But isthis an SQOL ? If it is decidedso, then per A !!"), the #$was re%uired to certif& it soand so, in not gi'ing the$ertificate it was wrong.() In an earlier Bom(a&$ase, it was held that merel&(ecasue an inference was to

(e drawn from a complicatedecree, no SQOL wouldarise. O*O#, in a Nagpurcase it was held that anSQOL arises if it is important(etween the parties and thecase turns on that. S$disagreed with (oth these'iews and agreed with that of

As far as the

merits of this $are concerned,+ is clear. Andsets out theprecise sum to claimed asdamages. Oncedone, the& mus(e deemed toeclude the righto claim anunascertained

sum as damageSo, $l - and do not hold an&more since theprofit herein is &et ascertained#ence the decrof the #$ on thmatter is held.


6/37

uestion o -aw

ecommendation o


7/37

the $emo o appeal

A. Gi00 co. v.Bim0a;umari

1 !"A$R-R=

Section-6,0ule 6of

Order7LI ofthe$ode

8'iction notice to/9S :ill ; $o ongrounds of"a) non


8/37

Banik1==$(&'SC-A#

states that it may ma2esuch order thereon as itthin2s tK The parameters areprescribed in -rder L


9/37

K 'here the order in1uestion is appealable theaggrieved party hasade1uate and eMcaciousremedy and the (ourt

should e"ercise the po!erto revie! its order !iththe greatestcircumspection

K A perusal o the-rder L (P( haany applicatio

The order o tigh (ourt isclearly contrato la! as laiddo!n by this(ourt The

#udgment o tigh (ourt inrevie!application isset aside(onse1uently

#udgment andorder passed the SecondAppeal standrestored Appis allo!ed !itno order as tocosts


10/37

!as dismissed

The court held that thepo!er o revie! may bee"ercised on thediscovery o ne! and

important matter oevidence !hich, ater thee"ercise o due diligence!as not !ithin the2no!ledge o the personsee2ing the revie! orcould not be produced byhim at the time !hen theorder !as made, it maybe e"ercised !here somemista2e or error apparenton the ace o the record

is oundN it may also bee"ercised on anyanalogous ground 8ut, itmay not be e"ercised onthe ground that thedecision !as erroneous onmerits That !ould be theprovince o a (ourt oappeal A po!er o revie!is not to be conused !ithappellate po!er !hichmay enable an Appellate(ourt to correct allmanner o errorscommitted by theSubordinate (ourt

9O4IC*AI78R794O3RSOF CO6R9(S.!%!'

!=.)ahantRamDas v.)ahantGan,aDas1IR!"$!

Section

4;),4;9 O4*4

The appellanthad led a suit

or thedeclaration thathe !asnominated$ahant o$oghal 7uanSangat !hich!as dismissed

'hetherthe igh

court in thecircumstances o thecase, !aspo!erlessto enlargethe time,even

S4;) o the code, interms, allo!s e"tension o

time even i the originalperiod "ed has e"pired,and S 4;9 is e1uallyliberal A ortiori, thesesections could be invo2edby the applicant, !henthe time had not actuallye"piredSuch procedural orders,

the Ape" couset aside the

order o theigh court noto enlarge thetime, and helthat the ighcourt could he"ercised itspo!ers rstunder S 4;)


11/37

SC AA by the trial#udge Theappeal !asdecided in hisavour on

condition thathe pay thedecient courtees, !ithin thetime speciedby the court8eore thee"piry o theperiod o threemonths,he hadled an

applicationunder section4;) and 4;9read !ithsection 4*4 (P(or e"tension otime !asdismissed bythe igh court

though ithadperemptorily "ed theperiod or

paymentJ

as in this case to pay thecourt ees !ithin the time"ed, though peremptoryare in essence, interrorem, so that dilatorylitigants put themselves in

order and avoid delayThey do not, ho!ever,completely estop a courtrom ta2ing note oevents and circumstances!hich happen !ithin thetime "ed

and then unds 4*4, (P(

9O4IC*!=

)7D)79 OF4-DI7GSO.


12/37

Co.1IR!"$"SC!$#

or leave toamend the paint

person or!hether itis merely amisdescription o

e"istingpersons

unless in an applicationor amendment o theplaint it is e"presslyaverred that the error,omission ormisdescription is due to a

bonade mista2e, thecourt has no po!er togrant leave to amend theplaint The po!er to grantamendment o thepleadings is intended toserve the ends o #usticeand is not governed byany such narro! ortechnical limitations

name o the rplaintif on thdate on !hich!as originallyinstituted

The orderpassed by the

Trial court ingranting theamendment !clearly right,and the ighcourt !as inerror indismissing thsuit on atechnically

!holly unrelato the merits the dispute

!. )SGanesh9radin,Co. v.)ojiRam1IR

!"#ASC 2A2

-6ule4

Appellant+plaintifmCs Hanesh

Trading(o,Earnal, hadled a suitthrough Shri #aiPra2ash, a partnero that rm,based on apromissory note0t !as assertedthat the suit !asincompetent or!ant oregistration o therm and !asstruc2 by theprovisions o s69o the 0ndianPartnershipActThe Plaintifled anamendmentapplication!herein it !asstated that theplaintif had?inadvertenentlyomitted certain

Procedural la! is intendedto acilitate and not toobstruct the course osubstantive #usticeA party cannot bereused relie merelybecause o some mista2e,negligence, inadvertenceor even inraction o therules o procedure

The suit havinbeen instituteby one o thepartners o adissolved rmthe merespecication the capacity i!hich the sui!as led counot change thcharacter o tsuit or the ca0t made nodiference to rest o thepleadings or tthe cause oaction 0ndeedthe amendmeonly sought tgive notice tothe deendanthe acts !hicthe plaintif!ould and cohave tried toprove in anycase This not


13/37

material acts!hich are not%no!& necessaryto incorporate inthe plaint so as toenable the court

to consider anddecide thesub#ect matter othe suit@

!as beinggiven, out oabundantcaution, so thno technicalob#ection may

be ta2en that!hat !assought to beproved !asoutside thepleadings

!&.Da0i+;aur v.)ajorSin,h1

IR!""$ 4 8!=#

#rinci$%es &ere%aiddo&n&'i%edea%in

&it'a$$%ication oa*end*ent

-6ule4

The plaintif ledan applicationunder -6 ule 4see2ingamendment othe plaint byma2ing a prayeror declaring the

#udgement anddecree passed incivil suit entitled$a#or Singh v8albir Eaur as nulland void andinefectiveagainst the rightso the plaintif

The Purpose o -6 ule4 is to allo! either partyto alter or amend hispleadings in such mannerand on such terms as maybe #ust The po!er toallo! the amendment is!ide and can be e"ercisedat any stage o theproceedings in theinterest o #ustice on thebasis o guidelines laiddo!n by various highcourts and Supreme courto 0ndia

#rinci$%es &ere %aid

do&n &'i%e dea%in&it' a$$%ication o

a*end*ent

The amendmdoes not deeany legal righallegedly havaccrued to thopposite partand the delayling thepetition oramendment cproperly becompensatedcosts

!2.B.;.7ara/an 4i00aiv.4arameswaran1(==='! SCC#!

-6ule4

The respondent+plaintif led asuit against theappellant deendantpraying or thegrant omandatory andprohibitoryin#unction see2ingeviction allegedlyon the ground ohis being alicense

The Purpose o -6 ule4 is to allo! either partyto alter or amend hispleadings in such mannerand on such terms as maybe #ust The po!er toallo! the amendment is!ide and can be e"ercisedat any stage o theproceedings in theinterest o #ustice on thebasis o guidelines laiddo!n by various highcourts and Supreme courto 0ndia

The appellantdeendant ispermitted toamend the!rittenstatement tothe e"tent oincorporatingthe plea o hientitlement tothe benet os65%b& o the0ndianFasements Ac4))> only


14/37

sub#ect to hispaying all thearrears onaccount olicence ee ancosts assesse

at s3555!ithin a perioo one monthrom the datethe partiesappear in thetrial court

9O4IC !!*RJC9IO7OF 4-I79(O.6


15/37

7CS OF7O7*44R7C (ORDRIH1R6-S

$1# 7D!&'

!$.San,ramSin,hv.0ection9ribuna01 IR

!"%%SC 2%

O."Ru0e$

The deendantand his counselboth ail toappear beore theFlection Tribunal,as a conse1uenceo !hich the

7udge permits e"parteproceedings The

deendant and hiscounsel appearedon ourth hearingand insist that notonly the order toproceed e" partebe reversed butthe deendantshould also bepermitted tocross+e"amine!itnesses o the

plaintif !ho !eree"amined in hisabsence

'hether e"parteproceedingsmeans totaldebarring othedeendantto appearbeore the

court onanysubse1uentdate or itmerelymeans thatthedeendantmay appearon a uturedate,

ho!ever,!ithout anyright toundo !hatpre#udicehas beencaused tohis interestin the e"parteproceedings

J

9he SC observed as:!' @ +arte+roceedin,s do notmean that thedeendant cannot bea00owed to a++ear ata00 in the subse5uent+roceedin,s o theSuit.' I a +art/ does not

a++ear on the da/ towhich the hearin, othe suit is adjourned1he cannot be sto++edrom +artici+atin, inthe +roceedin,s sim+0/because he did nota++ear on the ?rst orsome other hearin,.&' n omission toa++ear in res+onse tosummons carriers no

+ena0t/ in the strictsense.2' 7o orm or+rocedure shou0d everbe +ermitted toe@c0ude the+resentation o a0iti,antKs deence.%' 9he +roceedin,sthat aLect their 0ivesand +ro+er0/ shou0dnot continue in their

absence and that the/shou0d not be+rec0uded rom+artici+atin, in them.

The S( held tthough thea++e00antcannot berelegated to tsame positionas he has ailto sho! goodcause, hecannot be

denied hisri,ht tocontest andbe +resent osubse5uentdates

!#.Rajni;umar

-9 4 0n thiscase, the appeal!as led rom the

'hetherthe igh(ourt

4 The court observedthat a careul reading oule ; sho!s that it

The Supreme(ourt did notnd any


16/37

v.Suresh;umarma0hotra1

==&(&'SC-2&2

#udgement andorder o the igh(ourt o Ielhi inthe year >554 0nIelhi, theappellant cum

tenant had ta2ena residential Daton rent rom therespondent cumlandlord or aperiod o ninemonths under anagreement olease in !ritingAter the e"piry othe tenancy, shecontinued to

occupy the saidpremises astenant or a totalo around ouryears 0t !asalleged that theappellant did notpay the electricityand !aterconsumptioncharges or thesaid period> Therespondent led acase under -rder36 o (P( in (ivilcourt or therecovery oelectricity and!aterconsumptioncharges or theperiod The civilcourt noted theact that thesummons !eresent viaregistered post tothe appellant,proceeded !iththe case anddecreed the suit

committed#urisdictional error indeclining toset aside

the e" partedecree ontheapplicationo theappellantunder ule; o -rder3, on theground thathe ailed to

discloseactssuMcient toentitle himto deendthe suitJK 0n anapplicationunder -rder3, ule ;,the court

has todeterminethe1uestion,on the actso eachcase, as to!hethercircumstances pleadedare so

unusual ore"traordinary as to#ustiyputting thecloc2 bac2by settingaside the

empo!ers, under specialcircumstances, the court!hich passed an e" partedecree under -rder 3 toset aside the decree andgrant one or both o the

ollo!ing relies, i itseems reasonable to thecourt so to do and onsuch terms as the courtthin2s t. %i& to stay or setaside e"ecution, and %ii&to give leave to thedeendant %a& to appearto the summons, and %b&to deend the suit> The e"pressionspecial circumstancesB is

not dened in (P( nor isit capable oany precise denition bythe court becauseproblems o humanbeings are so varied andcomple" 0n its ordinarydictionary meaning itconnotes somethinge"ceptional in character,e"traordinary, signicant,uncommon 0t is anantonym o common,ordinary and general 0t isneither practicable noradvisable to enumeratesuch circumstances =on+service o summons !illundoubtedly be a specialcircumstances3 0n this case, thoughappellant has sho!nsuMcient cause or hisabsence on the date opassing e" parte decree,he ailed to disclose acts!hich !ould entitle him todeend the case Therespondent !as right inhis submission that in theapplication under ule ;o -rder 3, the appellant

illegality in thorder underchallenge to!arrantintererence

The court

observed thaliability in thiscase does notarise out o acommercialtransactionNthereore, thecourt hasreduced the ro interestence, theSupreme (ou

made somemodicationsthe trial court

#udgment anddismissed theappeal


17/37

e" parte3 Theappellant,ho!ever, ledapplication underule ; o -rder 3

(P( in the trial(ourt to set asidethe e" partedecree Theapplication !asdismissed as nospecialcircumstances!ere stated in thepetition both inrecord to therebeing illegality in

deeming serviceo summons or

#udgment on theappellant as !ellacts suMcient toentitle him todeend the suitAggrieved by theorder o the trialcourt, theappellantappealed in theigh (ourt, !hich!as alsodismissed in theyear >554; TheappellantBscounselcontended thatthere !as noproo or record tosho! that anynotice byregistered post!ithac2no!ledgementdue !as issued tothe appellant bythe respondent!ho had ta2enthe notice rom

decreeN togranturtherrelie inregard to

post+decreematters,namely,staying orsettingaside thee"ecutionand also inregard topre decreematters vi

to giveleave to thedeendantto appear tothesummonsand todeend thesuit

did not say a !ord aboutany amount being indeposit !ith therespondent or that thesuit !as not maintainableunder -rder 3 :rom a

perusal o the order underchallenge, it appears tous that the igh (ourt!as right inaccepting e"istence ospecial circumstances

#ustiying his not see2ingleave o the court todeend, but in declining togrant relie since he hadmentioned nocircumstances #ustiying

any deence; 0n an applicationunder -rder 9 ule 44, ia deendant is set e"parte and that orderis set aside, he !ould beentitled to participate inthe proceedings rom thestage he !as set e" parte8ut an application under-rder 9 ule 43 could beled on any o thegroundsmentioned thereunderonly ater a decree ispassed e" parte againstdeendant 0 the court issatised that %4&summons !as not dulyserved, or %>& he !asprevented by suMcientcause rom appearing!hen the suit !as calledor hearing, it has to ma2ean order setting aside thedecree against him onsuch terms as to cost orpayment into court orother!ise as it thin2s tand thereater on the day"ed or hearing by court,the suit !ould proceed as


18/37

the court but didnot le any prooo issuing thenotice to theappellant,thereore, there

!as specialreason or theappellant not toappear inresponse to thesummons or

#udgment* Therespondentsubmitted thatno!here in herapplication had

the appellantstated anythingabout her deenceto the suit andthereore theorder underchallenge !asrightly passed bythe courts belo!

i no e" parte decree hadbeen passed* The Supreme (ourtobserved that ule ; o-rder 3 is diferent romule 43 o -rder 9 The

court observed that ule; o -rder 3 specicallyprovides or setting asidedecree, thereore,provisions o ule 43 o-rder 9 !ill not apply to asuit led under -rder 30n this case, anapplication under ule ;o -rder 3 is led to setaside a decree and it isnot enough or the

deendant to sho! specialcircumstances !hichprevented him romappearing or applying orleave to deend, he hasalso to sho! by aMdavitor other!ise, acts !hich!ould entitle him leave todeend the suit 0t !asalso observed that in asuit under -rder 3, theprocedure or appearanceo deendant is governedby provisions o ule 3thereo

!A.Bhanu;umar

Jain v.rchana;umar1

IR==%SC $$

-9 Theremediesavailable toa deendantin the evento an e"partedecree

beingpassedagainst himin terms o-9 ule 43and thee"tent andlimitation

'hen an applicationunder -9 ule 43 isdismissed the deendantcan only avail a remedyavailable there againstvi to preer an appeal interms o -;3 ule 4 othe (ode -nce such anappeal dismissed, theappellant cannot raise thesame contention in therst appeal 0 it be heldthat such a contentioncan be raised both in therst appeal as also in theproceedings arising roman application under - 9

The impugne#udgement is aside and thecase remittedthe ( orconsiderationthe case o thparties on meo the matter


19/37

thereo is in1uestion

ule 43, it may lead toconDict o decisions !hichis not contemplated inla!

9O4IC*!&S6))RM4ROCD6R(O.R6-S !*2'

!".Santosh;umarv. Bhai)oo0

Sin,h1IR!"%ASC &!

O. The issue inthis caserelated toleave todeend thesuit under

-3, 3,(P(

The test is to see !hetherthe deence raises a realissue and not a sham one,i the acts allegedly bythe deendants areestablished, there !ouldbe a good or even a

plausible deence onthose acts

=. )s)echa0ecn,ineers and)anua

turersv. Basic5ui+mentCor+oration1IR!"##SC %##

#rici$%es &ere%aiddo&n int'is caseorrantin%eave todeend

O.

The Plaintif, apartnership rm,led a suit or therecovery ocertain amounton the strength oa che1ue dra!n

by the deendant!hich inpresentation, !asdishonoured

The suit !as ledunder -3 sothat thedeendant had toapply or leave todeend This leave!as grantedunconditionally by

the trial courto!ever the (ound thatdeences !erenot bona de andthus set aside theorder o the trialcourt =o! mattercame beore S(

Any decision on the1uestion that thedeences could be honestand bona de, evenbeore evidence has beenled by the t!o sides, isgenerally haardous

In ;iranmo/ee Dassi v.Chatterjee (IR !"2"Ca0 2#"'1The (alcatta( has 0aid down theo00owin, +rinci+0esre0atin, to suits osummar/ nature+

1)I t'e deendantsatis+ed t'e court t'at'e 'as a ood deence

to c%ai* on its *erits,t'e $%ainti- is notentit%ed to %eave tosin .ude*ent andt'e deendant isentit%ed tounconditiona% %eave todeend/

The S( held tthe orderpassed by thetrial court !acorrect and thhigh court!rongly

interered !itit 0n other!ords, anunconditionaleave to deeto be grantedthe deendan


20/37

2)I t'e deendantraises a tria%e issue'e is entit%ed tounconditiona% %eave todeend/

)I t'e deendant 'asno deence or t'edeence set u$ isi%%usor or s'a* or

$ractica%% *oons'ine,t'en ordinari% t'e

$%ainti- in entit%ed tosin .ud*ent anddeendant is notentit%ed to %eave todeend/

!.O7GC-td.


21/37

li1uidateddamages !ithinthe timestipulated therein,the appellantsshall be entitled

to encash theperormanceguarantee 0nccompliance !iththis re1uirement,the contractorhad urnished aban2 guaranteerom the State8an2 o 0ndia%S80&, -verseas8ranch, 8ombat,

to cover theli1uidateddamages claim(ontractor as !ellas the 8an2 nothaving honouredthe ban2guarantee, theapellant as2edthe respondentban2 to vredit thesaid guaranteealong !ith theinterest -n Iec3, 4993 therespondent 8an2stated that theyhave issued theguarantee inavour o -=H(against thecounterguaranteeB o the0talian 8an2(redito, $ilan andthe contractorobtained an ordero in#unction roman 0talian (ourtrestraining(redito italianorom ma2ing any


22/37

payment to therespondent 8an2under the counterguarantee Thehigh court byorder granted

unconditionalleave to deendthe suit

9O4IC*!29)4ORRMI7J67C9IO7S 7DI79R-OC69ORMORDRS

(O.&"1R6-S !*%'

.)anohar -a0v. Seth8ira-a0 IR!"$

SC %#

O.&" 'hether the(ourt couldnot e"erciseits inherentpo!ers !henthere !erespecicprovisions inthe (P( orissuance oin#unctionsvi Sec 9;and -rder39

3'e Sc oserved aso%%o&s41) It is &e%% sett%edt'at t'e $rovisions ocode are note'austive/2) o $art 'as ari't to insist on t'ecourts eercisinin'erent .urisdictionand t'e courteercises it on% &'enit consider itaso%ute% necessaror t'e ends o .ustice/3'e $o&ers are to eeercised inece$tiona%circu*stances or&'ic' t'e code %as

do&n no $rocedure/)3'ere is no suc'e$ression in Sec/9&'ic' e$ress%

$ro'iits t'e issue ote*$orar in.unctionin circu*stances notcovered /9/

)S/151 does not

The S( held tit can granttemporaryin#unction incircumstancenot coveredunder -39


23/37

contro% or %i*it t'ein'erent $o&er o t'ecourt/

&.

Da0+at;aur v.4rah0adSin,h1IR!""&SC #$

-39 The appellant hadentered into an

agreement !iththe respondent topurchase thehouse orespondent andalso paid someadvance but hecould not get thepossession Thenappellant led asuit or specicperormance!hich !asdecreed e"+parteand sale deed!as e"ecuted bythe courtSubse1uently,respondentBs !ieled a suitagainst appellantand soughttemporaryin#unction againstdispossession

This !as re#ectedby the court Thisorder o lo!ercourt !asconrmed by (

Then appellantled an e"ecutionpetition !hich!as allo!ed bythe court despiteopposition byrespondent Then,sons o petitionerled suit againstthis as they calledthis property as

#oint property andas2ed or divisiono the property

'hether (!as right ingranting ad+interimin#unctionto therespondentJ-rder 39rule 4%c& 0n#unctionmay be

granted!here in asuit , it isproved bythe aMdavitorother!isethat thedeendantthreatens todispossess

the plaintiforother!isecause in#uryto plaintifin relationto anyproperty inthe suit

The S( observed thatgrant o in#unction is a

discretionary relie -nehas to satisy the court orgetting it on ollo!ingpoints.+%4& There is seriousdisputed 1uestion to betriedin the suit and thaton acts beore the court,there is probability o hisbeing entitled to the relieas2ed or by theplaintifCdeendant%>& (ourtBsintererence is necessaryto protect the party romthe species o in#ury ordamage !ould ensuebeore the legal rights areestablished at trial%3& That thecomparativehardshipCmischieCinconvenience !hich is li2ely tooccur !ill be more iin#unction is not grantedrather than on beinggranted

Thereore, the plaintif !illhave to prove that thereis a prima+acie case inhis avour !hich needsad#udication at trial orgetting in#unction 8utcourt !ill have to bemade satised that nonintererence by the court!ill result in irreparablein#ury to the party see2ingrelie and there is noother !ay remedyavailable to the partye"cept one to grantin#unction and he needsprotection o the court

o!ever, S(

observed th( !ithout

averting to a

material

evidence li2e

any act o

damage,any

alienation

made etc he

that balance

conveniencelies in avou

o granting

in#unction ,

!as totally

!rongSo

appeal !as

allo!ed and

order o (

!as set asidand that o

trial court !

conrmed


24/37

and re1uested orinterim in#unction,!hich !asre#ected by bothlo!er court and( =o! the

respondent ledourth suit statingthat appellant!as his counseland he hadplayed raud !ithhim and soughtinterim in#unctionromdispossession

The trial courtre#ected the

application but( allo!ed theapplication andgranted interimin#unctionrestraining theappellants romta2ingpossession So,this appeal in S(

against dispossession8esides, Prima acie caseis not to conused !ithprima+acie title, !hichhas to be established onevidence in trial

The irreparable loss, thatis li2ely to be caused tobe such that it canBt becompensated by !ay odamages

The other condition that isto be satised that ?theba0ance oconvenience must bein avour o ,rantin,injunction.The courtmust e"ercise sound

#udicial discretion to ndthe amount o substantialmischie or in#ury !hich isli2ely to be caused to theparties

The phrases +rima*acie case1 ba0anceo convenience andirre+arab0e 0oss@ are!ords o substantial !idthand elasticity to meet thevarious situations andcircumstances but herediscretion is to bee"ercised very #udiciouslyto meet the ends o

#ustice0n#unction can be granted0 itBs sho!n that raudhas been perpetratedeven i the matter hasbeen decreed other!iseother!ise also but beoregranting the in#unctioncourt !ill have to be verycircumspect and mustloo2 to the conduct o theparty and !hetherplaintif can beade1uately compensatedi in#unction is reused


25/37

4R9 B:-I)I99IO79O4IC !:SC9IO7

&*%2.R.B.4o0icies t-0o/dKsv.But0er(!"2"' 00 R$

Section &

A motorcarbelonging to8 Policies%Plaintif& hadstolen by someun2no!npersons on

7une,49;5 0n7anuary,49;,

they ound thecar inpossession oIeendantIuring theprevious 6years car hadbeen passedthroughseveral

intermediatepurchasesbeore beingpassed to theIeendant=o!, Plaintifsued theIeendant or!ronguldetention o

car

i& At !hatthe causeo action issaid toaccrueJii&'hetherPlaintifBsaction isbarred

under


26/37

4a+er)i00s-td.IR==2

SC!%"$

443othe


27/37

realied byappellant

and the same isentertained the

#udgement o the (or the Tribunal is in

#eopardy The

sub#ect+matter odispute unlessdetermined by thelast (ourt cannot besaid to have attainednality and grant ostay o operation othe #udgement maynot be o muchrelevance once this

court grants S


28/37

maturity, theappellantad#usted thesum due romthe :Is on

Iec,49))espondentalleged thatdebt becomebarred bylimitation ason $ay,49)

The liability othe respondentbeing

(oe"tensive!ith that oprincipaldebtor, hisliability alsostoode"tinguishedon $ay,49)

#.Co00ect

or1-andc5uisition1nantna, v.;atiji1IR!"A#SC

!&%&

Section %

Su:cientCause

0n this case(ourt

considered the1uestion o thelimitation in anappealpreerred bythe Statearising out o adecision (enhancingcompensation

in respect oac1uisition olands or publicpurpose andre#ecting anapplication orcondonation o

i&'hatapproach

courtsshouldadopt!hiledealing!ithapplicationorcondonation o delay

ii&'hethersamestandard oSuMcientcauseB testbe appliedto all

(ourt held thatSection * !as

enacted in order toenable the court to dosubstantial #ustice tothe parties bydisposing o matterson merits 0t laid do!nguidelines orapplication osuMcient causeBprinciple The

e"pression QsuMcientcause is o !ideamplitude to enablethe courts to applythe la! in ameaningul manner!hich subserves the

Ielay !asaccordingly

condoned,the order !set aside


29/37

delay litigantsregardlesso theirpersonalityincluding

the State

ends o the #ustice+that being the lie+purpose or thee"istence o theinstitution o courts

This (ourt reiteratedthat the e"pressionQevery dayRs delaymust be e"plainedQdoes not mean that apedantic approachshould be made Thedoctrine must beapplied in a rationalcommon sense

pragmatic manner'hen substantial

#ustice and technicalconsiderations arepitted against eachother, cause osubstantial #usticedeserves to bepreerred or theother side cannot

claim to have vestedright in in#ustice beingdone because o anon+deliberate delay

There is nopresumption thatdelay is occasiondeliberately eusingto condone delay canresult in a meritorious

matter being thro!nout at the verythreshold and causeo #ustice beingdeeated As againstthis !hen delay iscondoned the highest


30/37

that can happen isthat a cause !ould bedecided on meritsater hearing theparties

The doctrine oe1uality beore la!demands that alllitigants, including theState as a litigant,are accorded thesame treatment andthe la! isadministered in anevenhanded manner

rather than step+motherly treatment0mpersonalmachinery, inheritedbureaucracy %slo!moving& is diMcult toapprove The State!hich representcollective cause o thecommunity, does not

deserve a litigant+non+grata status Thecourts, thereore,have to be inormed!ith the spirit andphilosophy o theprovision

A.State

o7a,a0and v.-i+okO(==%'& SCC

Section *

0n an incidento shoot+out

and death, a#udgment oac1uittal !aspassed AddlIy(ommissioner As there

(orrectness o the

#udgement renderedbyHu!ahati(,Eohima

That discretiongiven by Sec *

should receive aliberal construction%India InsuranceCo.Ltd V ShantiMisra& 'hatconstitutes suMcientcause cannot be laid

0n vie! o actual

bac2grounand legalprinciples,delay o *dayscondoned ( order s


31/37

#% !as delay inma2ing theapplication orgrant o

leave,application orcondonationo delay !asled butre#ected byHu!ahati (observingthat merelythat inspite

o instructionsappeal couldnot be ledand thatrecords !eremissing !asnot a validground

do!n by hard andast rules Thebac2ground actsinvolved assume

importance li2e!hether appellantacted !ithreasonable diligencein prosecuting theappeal, unless !anto bona des o suchinaction ornegligence as todeprive a party

rom protection osec * is proved, theapplication must notbe thro!n out anddelay cannot bereused to becondoned %brij IndarSingh V KanshiRam) (ondonation

o delay is a1uestion o actdependent upon theacts andcircumstances othe particular case%SCo Eerela v FEEuriyipe& 0n -PEathpalia v


32/37

the delay 0nlitigations !hereHovt is a party,there is yet another

aspect !hichperhaps cannot beignored %redtop,slo! decisionma2ing&, i appealsbrought by Hovtare lost or suchdeaults, no personis individuallyafected but in

ultimate analysispublic interestsufers o!ever,courts should decidethe matters on meritunless the case shopelessly !ithoutmerit =o separatestandards to

determine the causelaid by the State vis++vis private litigantcould be laid toprove strictstandards osuMcient cause

9O4IC *(SC.

!1!#*!"1!'

". 9heCommissioneroSa0es

Section!9imeRe5u

An appeal led bythe respondentagainst an ordero the Sales Ta"-Mcer !asdisposed of by

(A= TFT0$F TAEF=8 TFFSP-=IF=

T 0=-8TA0=0=H

S4>%>& shall apply ordetermining any period olimitation or any purposeprescribed by any local orspecial la! insoar as theyare not e"pressly

Thus it !as hthat the highcourt !ascorrect in itsorder ine"cluding the


33/37

[email protected] v.)s)adan-a0 das

SonsBarei00/1 IR!"##SC %&

isite

the Additional(ommissioner,Sales Ta", 8areillyA copy o theappellate order!as served to the

respondent Therespondent lostthe copy andapplied to obtainanother copyAter receivingthe copy, he ledor revision beorethe #udge, morethan a year aterthe #udgement S45 o the /P Sales

Ta" Act prescribesthe period olimitation as oneyear rom date oservice o theorder, but onproo o suMcientcause, therevising authoritymay entertain anapplication !ithina urther period osi" months Therespondent reliedon s 4>%>& o the%>&, and thus, it shallapply in the ollo!ing

caseThe respondent !as notre1uired to le the copy othe order !ith the revisionpetition 8ut this cannotbe a ground or nonapplication o s4>%>&, asno!here does the sectionsay that the period orobtaining the copy !ill bee"cluded only i such acopy is re1uired to be

led along !ith therevision petition 0t is notpermissible to insert sucha proviso in the section!hen the legislature hasnot inserted it Also, therespondent !ould nothave been in a position todecide !hether to le orrevision or not and i so,on !hat grounds, !ithouta copy o the orderA copy o the order !asserved upon therespondent, and it !ascontended by thepetitioner that ling oranother copy, as such,!as not necessary 0t isound that the copyserved upon therespondent !as lost byhim, !hich necessitatedthe ling or another copy

time period oobtaininganother copythe order romthe computato the period

limitation


34/37

&=.Stateo 6.4v.

)aharaj7arain1IR!"$ASC "$=

Section4>%>&

The respondents!ere tried orvarious ofences

The Sessions#udge ac1uitted

them The state!ent up in appealagainst the ordero the ac1uittal

This appeal !asdismissed asbeing barred byapplication olimitation, as theperiod olimitation or anappeal rom anorder rom anorder o ac1uittalis three monthsrom the date othe order Theappellants %State&appealed againstthe correctness othe order to theSupreme (ourt

The appellantscontended thatthe appeal !as!ithin time as thetime re1uisiteBor obtaining acopy o the orderis e"cluded romthe period olimitation Theappellantsobtained threecopies o theorder obtainedagainst, and ledthat copy o theorder !ith thememorandum oappeal !hich too2the ma"imumtime or itspreparation The

'AT 0S TFP-PF0=TFPFTAT0-= -:%>& and helthe appeal!ithin time


35/37

high court oAllahabad hadruled in avour othe respondents

other date

&!.

)ahabir;ishorev. Stateo).4.1IR !""=SC &!&

Section

!#.eLect oraudormistake

The !rit petitionschallenging the

governmentBsright to charge V percent !erepending in the$P igh (ourt ,the Hovernmentannounced that it!ould continue tocharge it TheAppellants thuspaid or the abovecontracts a totale"tra sum os*;,656

The suit !as orreund o moneypaid undermista2e o la!

'hether,and i so,!hichprovision othe


36/37

v.7iranjan ;aur(smt.'IR

!"""SC!=2#

acknow0ed,ement

mortgagor, byregistered saledeed 'hereas on44+4+4965 theoriginalmortgagee sold

his right by aregistered deedto therespondents, !hoac2no!ledged thee"istence omortgage in1uestion0n 49)5,appellants ledthe present suitor possession by!ay o

redemption o thesuit land asagainstrespondents Theappellantscontended thatsince there isac2no!ledgementby mortgage on44+4+4965, aresh limitationstarts rom thisdate, hence, thesuit is !ithinlimitation

i the limitation hasalready e"pired, it !ouldnot revive 0t is onlyduring subsistence o aperiod o limitation suchdocument is e"ecuted

that the limitation !ouldbe revived aresh romthe date o theac2no!ledgement 0n thepresent case, there isneither any deed nordocument o mortgage$ortgage could beredeemed at any time!ithin 65 years rom thedate o mortgage

is said to havbeen e"ecuteand hence thperiod olimitation o 6years !ould

start rom thevery date o omortgage ie$arch 4)93

9O4IC*2

&2.Stateo4unjabv.

GurdevSin,h(!""!'2 SCC !

rtic0e!!&oC.4.C

The PlaintifBsservices !ereterminated orunauthorisedabsence !ithoutan en1uiry einstituted the suitor declarationthat thetermination order!as against theprinciples onatural #ustice,terms andconditions o

'hethersuit or suchrelie is notgovernedby anyprovisions

o the


37/37

employment Thetrial courtdismissed the suiton limitation 8uton appealadditional Iistrict

7udge decreed thesuit and held thatno limitation isprescribed orchallenging anillegal order Sincethe order otermination isbad, the suit isnot barred bylimitation, (agreed !ith itl

by any o the specicarticles prescribing aperiod o limitation, itmust all !ithin theresiduary articleA443 isa residuary article or

cases not covered by anyother provisions in theact 0t prescribes a periodo 3 years !hen the rightto sue accrues The 'ords?right to sue@ ordinarilymean the right to see2relie by means o legalproceedings

So the S( setaside the the

#udgment anddecree o theigh (ourt

&%.jaibSin,hv.SirhindCoo+rative)arketin,cum*

4rocessin,ServiceSociet/-td.1IR!""$SC!&%!

rtic0e!oC.4.C

The services othe appellant!or2man !ereterminated by therespondentmanagement!ithoutcompliance o themandatoryprovisions o the0ndustrial IisputeAct, 49; The

consolidated cases- cpc

Documents