10 Landmark Cases of the Code of Civil Procedure
The article '10 Landmark Cases of the Code of Civil Procedure' presents an overview of 10 landmark cases that have significantly impacted the field of civil procedure.
The article '10 Landmark Cases of the Code of Civil Procedure' presents an overview of 10 landmark cases that have significantly impacted the field of civil procedure. The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is a crucial legal framework that governs the proceedings of civil lawsuits in many jurisdictions. Over the years, numerous cases have shaped the interpretation and application of the CPC, influencing the course of civil litigation.
10 Landmark Cases of the Code of Civil Procedure
1. Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2008) 3 SCC 659
Judges: Justice C.K Thakker, Justice Markandey Katju
Date: 11th January 2008
Facts:
The trust was founded on September 24, 1997, in Punjab with the goal of establishing professional institutions. The appellant and the chairman of the trust, Gurcharan Singh, both served as trustees. B.S. Randhawa was appointed a new trustee in 1998. Elections were held in 2002, when Gurcharan was once again chosen as Chairman, prompting complaints from B.S. Randhawa and Hardev Kaur. Gurcharan was assassinated on June 21, 2003, as he was in the park with the appellant. B.S. Randhawa was detained as the primary suspect.
On July 23, 2003, the chairman election was held anew, and the appellant was chosen. On July 25, 2003, Hardev Kaur filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the selection process for the appellant, which took place on July 23, was invalid and illegitimate. She was permitted to attend meetings but only received a limited amount of temporary relief. Through general secretary Jaspal, they filed a second lawsuit in October 2003 under the name of the Kandi Friends Education Trust. It was prayed that the 14 October 2003 resolution is invalid. Jaspal filed a second lawsuit on April 6, 2005, seeking a permanent injunction against the applicant. Given that the matter had been pending for three years, the trust submitted a transfer application in 2006. In her reply, the appellant claimed that she was the target of false accusations. The ruling has been contested in the Supreme Court by the appellant. The HC shifted the lawsuit to Chandigarh.
Issue Raised:
When is the transfer of a lawsuit permitted under CPC?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the impugned rulings and granted the appeal.
"Broad notions as to what may constitute a reason for transfer have been put down by courts, reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and taking into account numerous judicial decisions. They include the balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff, defendant, or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a specific location of trial considering the type of evidence on the issues involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; a reasonable worry in the litigant's mind that he might not receive justice in the court where the suit is pending; significant legal issues involved; or a substantial portion of the public interested in the case. These are a few of the situations that are relevant while thinking about whether to transfer a lawsuit, appeal, or other process. These are a few of the situations that are relevant while thinking about whether to transfer a lawsuit, appeal, or other process. However, they should only be regarded as illustrative and not as exhaustive. It is not only within the court's power, but also its obligation, to issue such an order if it determines, based on the foregoing or other pertinent factors, that the plaintiff or defendant is unlikely to receive a "fair trial" in the court from which he seeks to transfer a matter."
2. Yashwant Sinha and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 2019 SC 1802, 2019 (6) SCALE 171, (2019) 6 SCC 1
Judges: Justice Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.I., Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Date:14th November 2019
Facts:
The three documents that are the focus of the current dispute were published in the newspaper "The Hindu" on various occasions in the month of February 2019. One of the documents, Note-18 from the Ministry of Defence, was also printed in the Digital Print Media publication "The Wire." The Respondents haven't substantially refuted or questioned the fact that the three documents had been published in The Hindu and were therefore in the public domain; to their credit, no issue has ever been raised against the publishing of the documents in 'The Hindu' newspaper.
Issue Raised:
Whether a document designated as secret under the Official Secrets Act of 1923 will be barred from publication or presented to a court for decision.
Judgment:
By dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court ruled that neither the Official Secrets Act nor any other statute to which it was made known had any provision conferring authority on the executive branch of government to prevent the publication of documents marked as secret or from presenting such documents to a court of law that might have been asked to decide a legal dispute between the parties. However, the constitution's preamble declares that justice—whether it be social, economic, or political—is the ultimate objective. Every State has a responsibility to establish an equitable and efficient judicial system. In reality, judicial review is seen as a fundamental component of the Constitution.
3. R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 1963 SCR (3) 22
Judges: Shah, J.C.
Date: 4th May 1962
Facts:
When one Ramalingam passed away in Bangalore, he left behind a will outlining significant immovable and moveable property in the States of Mysore and Madras. The executors requested probate of the will, and the district judge approved their request. The sons of Ramlingam then filed two lawsuits in the District Courts of Bangalore and the District Court Civil and Military Station for possession of the movable and immovable properties in Mysore that were left to them by the will, as well as a lawsuit in the Madras High Court for the same purpose. Certain shares of India Sugars and Refineries Ltd., a business with its registered office in Bellary in the State of Madras, were included in the transaction.
The lawsuits were founded on the argument that Ramalingam lacked the legal authority to dispose of the properties through his will because they were all joint family properties. The Madras lawsuit was suspended while the Bangalore lawsuits were being resolved. The District Judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff, concluding that the will was invalid since the property it bequeathed belonged to Ramalingam and his sons collectively. The Mysore High Court was the appeal venue of choice for the executors. The appeals were denied by the HC.
The case was brought before the whole Bench, appeals were granted, and the lawsuit asserting that Ramalingam had acquired the land on his own was dismissed. The Mysore judgement did not affect the immovable in Madras, but it was definitive with respect to the movables even outside the State of Mysore, the High Court held on appeal, and it modified the judgement of the trial court by dismissing the suit with respect to the movables because it was not established that the Mysore Full Bench was coram non-judice. The properties in the suit were joint family properties that Ramalingam was unable to dispose of by will
Issue Raised:
Whether the Mysore High Court's judgement was final
Whether a foreign court has the authority to issue an actual judgement that may be upheld or recognised by an Indian court
Judgment:
With regard to the immovable assets in Madras, the Mysore High Court's decision was not binding on the parties in the Madras dispute, but it was conclusive with regard to the Company's interests in the State of Madras. If the subject of the action involves property, whether movable or immovable, within the jurisdiction of that Court, a foreign court has the authority to render a judgement in rem that may be enforced or accepted in an Indian court. The Mysore Courts lacked the authority to render a binding decision regarding real estate located in the State of Madras, nor did they render a decision regarding real estate located elsewhere.
4. Menaka Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 468, 1979 SCR (2) 378 1979 SCC (4) 167
Judges: Justice Krishnaiyer, V.R.
Date: 28th November 1978
Facts:
Rani Jethmalani, a young lawyer by profession and the offspring of an MP accuses Mrs. Maneka Gandhi, the wife of Sri Sanjay Gandhi and the daughter-in-law of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the former prime minister of India, of defamation. 2. A petition has been filed asking for the case to be moved from Bombay to Delhi.
Issue Raised:
Can criminal cases be moved from Bombay to Delhi?
Judgment:
The court noted that ordinarily, the party lodging a complaint has the right to select any court with jurisdiction, and the accused is not permitted to choose the venue for his own trial. The court also noted that it is hard to believe that someone in the petitioner's position—the daughter-in-law of the former prime minister, the wife of a significant individual, and an editor of a well-known magazine—is unable to hire a lawyer to represent her in a different city when she is evidently well-represented in many legal proceedings. The court rejected the transfer of petition, citing the guarantee of a fair trial as the primary requirement for the administration of justice and refusing to allow easy access to legal counsel for a specific party.
5. Y. Narasimha Rao and Ors v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Anr
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (1991) 3 SCC 451
Judges: Justice Rangnath Misra and P.B Sawant
Date: 9th July 1991
Facts:
According to Hindu law, A1 and R1 were wed in Tirupati in 1975, but they later divorced. • A1 submitted a request for divorce to the Tirupati Sub-court, claiming to be a resident of New Orleans, USA. • In 1980, he filed a second petition for divorce in Missouri's Circuit Court, claiming that he had lived in the state for 90 days before doing so and that his wife had abandoned him for more than a year. The Circuit Court assumed jurisdiction and issued the decision for dissolution on 9-2-1980 on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown after R1 rebutted the foreign court's jurisdiction. The Tirupati Subcourt dismissed the petition. In 1981, A1 wed A2 in India. R1 accused the appellants of bigamy in a criminal complaint they made in 1981. In light of the Missouri court's decree of marriage dissolution, the appellants submitted a motion for discharge. The Appellants were released by the Magistrate. The HC overturned the ruling, ruling that the photostat copy of the Missouri Court's judgement was inadmissible as evidence in a divorce case. Appellants have currently appealed to the SC.
Issue raised:
Does Section 13 of the CPC allow domestic courts to enforce divorce judgements rendered by foreign courts?
Judgment:
The appeal was denied by the Supreme Court. "Under Section 13 of the CPC, a foreign judgement is not conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated between the parties if (a) it has not been issued by a court of competent jurisdiction; (b) it has not been given on the merits of the case; (c) it is based on an incorrect interpretation of international law or a refusal to recognise Indian law in situations where such law is applicable; (d) the proceedings are contrary to natural justice; (e) it was obtained fraudulently; (f) it upholds a claim based on a violation of any Indian law currently in effect.
6. Dr Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde
Court: Supreme of India
Citation:1990 AIR 113
Judges: Justice Ahmadi
Date: 18th October 1989
Facts:
The Respondent filed a defamation lawsuit against the petitioner in the Bombay High Court, requesting Rs. 1 crore in damages for the harm his reputation was alleged to have sustained due to the publication or imputed use of certain allegedly derogatory remarks made by the complainant at a press conference held in New Delhi. The petitioner allegedly made a number of claims at the aforementioned press conference, which were widely reported in publications in 1989. In essence, the claim was that the respondent and members of his family earned more than Rs. 300 crores through shady land deals in Bangalore and other regions of Karnataka, favouring his friends and family members as well as non-resident Indians.
By the current petition, which the petitioner filed in accordance with Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner requests that the aforementioned case, which is now pending in the Bombay High Court, be transferred to any Karnataka civil court, preferably the City Civil Court in Bangalore, on the basis of forum non-convenience. The respondent claims that because he is the dominus litis and opposes the transfer of the lawsuit, he is allowed to pick the venue.
Issue Raised:
Whether the Supreme Court has the authority to order the transfer of an action, appeal, or other proceedings from a high court or other civil courts in one State to a High Court or other civil court of another State if it determines that such an order is necessary to further the interests of justice.
Judgment:
If the Supreme Court determines that such an Order is necessary to further the interests of justice, it has the authority to order the transfer of any suit, appeal, or other proceeding from a High Court or other Civil Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court in another State at any time. Justice's ends, in this case, seek that the Bombay High Court move the matter to the City Civil Court in Bangalore, where the vast majority of the witnesses and the majority of the documentary evidence are present.
The charge would have an equal or greater effect on readers in Bangalore because the respondent often lived there and served as Karnataka's chief minister throughout the time that the different activities for which he is accused occurred. If the case is transferred as requested, there would be no prejudice, much less significant disadvantage, suffered by the respondent.
7. The Competent Authority Calcutta, Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. v. David Mantosh & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
Date: 26th February 2019
Facts:
From 1933 to 1962, many parties received the suit property through a series of transfers. Eventually, it was turned over to the West Bengal state, which leased it to Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals for a period of 30 years. The original owner filed a writ petition to reclaim ownership of the property after several years of dormancy. The petition was approved by the Calcutta High Court's single judge but was afterwards contested by the respondent before the high court's division bench. The division bench upheld the single bench's decision and accepted the appeal.
A different respondent who had been offended by the Division bench's ruling filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, but the motion was denied by that court. And an alternative under the act or any other law was requested, according to the petitioner. As a result, Respondent Nos. 1 through 7 brought the civil lawsuit that gave birth to the current appeals. The action was brought in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sealdah, against the present Appellants, i.e., the Act's Competent Authority, the State of West Bengal, and Respondent Nos. The civil lawsuit was brought to get ownership of the suit's property and a statement.
Issue Raised:
whether the Division Bench of the High Court acted properly when it granted the Plaintiffs' appeal and dismissed the case.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court took into account the argument that since the Act disallows civil court jurisdiction, the civil courts' ability to hear civil lawsuits involving lands that were the subject of ceiling proceedings under the Act is impliedly forbidden. As a result, the appeals are successful and accepted. The contested rulings are overturned, and the Trial Court's ruling is reinstated. David Mantosh and Others v. Competent Authority Calcutta, Case No. 77. On February 26th, 2019
8. M. C. Setalvad, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain vs B. Sen and I. N. Shroff
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 1968 SCR (3) 662
Judges: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Bachawat, R.S., Vaidyialingam, C.A., Hegde, K.S., Grover, A.N.
Date: 5th April 1968
Facts:
The petition was a writ of mandate on sales tax unlawfully collected in violation of Articles 301 and 304A by the appellants, cigarette sellers. Under section 17 of the Act, lawsuits cannot be maintained. There was a limitation on the civil court's authority. In the instance of Firm IlluriSubbayya Chetty & Sons, the petitioner admitted that the tax was due and that he did not challenge this under the Act. · According to section 20 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, civil courts are not allowed to hear cases requesting tax refunds, as was determined in M/s. Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay. According to the time frame in the Limitation Act, a Writ of Certiorari may be obtained for reimbursement. It was unlawful to tax the importer when a comparable tax was not imposed on similarly produced items.
Issue Raised:
Do civil courts have authority over tax refund cases?
Judgment:
On the basis of citations, it was claimed that numerous statutes included provisions that led to decisions being taken without explicitly excluding the Civil Courts' jurisdiction and that there was actually no suitable mechanism for bringing these types of issues before authorities.
The judge looked at the remedies offered by the Indian Income-tax Act and discovered that since every authority was a product of the law and carried out its functions in accordance with it, the decision to assess taxes by those authorities could not be reversed. As a result, the taxing authorities won the case.
In light of the dearth of Section 18-A in this case, it was decided that it could not be claimed that the High Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter, making it more authentic than any of the aforementioned cases. The High Court established some guiding principles with regard to each of these decisions.
9. Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation:(2017) 9 SCC 700
Judges: Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Mohan M. Shantana Goudar
Date: 3rd October 2017
Facts:
Initial legal action brought by the appellant sought to invalidate a sale document for land that D7 had bought. But D7 passed away before the lawsuit could be filed. The trial court determined that D7 is no longer being sued. Then, the appellant submitted a request to record the LRs of D7 under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. The trial court denied it, arguing that Order 22 Rule 4 only applied when the defendant passed away while the case was still pending and not before the lawsuit was filed. Another application by the appellant to introduce the LRs under Order 1 Rule 10 was denied. The HC upheld the trial court's judgement. The appellant has appealed the aforementioned order to the SC.
Issue Raised:
If an application under Order 22 Rule 4 was denied, can legal representatives of the deceased party be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC?
Judgment:
The HC verdict that was challenged was rejected by the Supreme Court after it accepted the appeal. When an application under Order 22 Rule 4 has been denied, there is no prohibition to filing one under Order 1 Rule 10. "Merely because the prior application submitted by the appellant in accordance with Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed on September 9, 2009, as not maintainable, it would not preclude the plaintiff from submitting another application that is legally maintainable. By virtue of the ruling of 9-9-2009, the application to bring legal representatives to the record was not decided on the merits.
10. Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri &Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2020) 2 SCC 394
Judges: Justice N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi
Date: 19th November 2019
Facts:
The respondent sued the petitioner for specific performance after a disagreement between the parties occurred regarding the performance of the sale agreement, and the petitioner responded by filing a written statement and counterclaim in the same lawsuit. The order was then contested in front of the High Court, which upheld the decision and dismissed the counterclaim after the trial court rejected the arguments regarding filing the counterclaim after filing the written statement and formulation of issues.
Dissatisfied with the aforementioned High Court order, the petitioner filed a case with the Supreme Court Division, which forwarded the case to a Three Judge Bench. The Three Judge Bench accepted the trial court's ruling and requested that an immediate Special Leave Petition be filed in order to request directives from the Hon. Chief Justice of India about the merits of the issue.
Issue Raised:
Is there an embargo on publishing the counterclaim after filing the written declaration under Order VIII Rule 6 of the CPC?
What limitations apply to the filing of the counterclaim following the submission of the written statement if the aforementioned question is answered negatively?
Judgment:
The Three Judge Bench stated that the court must take into account the counterclaim's time limit, which is fixed until the problems are defined. The courts may consider filing a counterclaim in certain situations after taking into account and carefully weighing the illustrative but not all-inclusive factors listed below. Finally, the Court decided that it could not consider a counterclaim made after the submission of a written declaration once the issues had been framed (per curiam).
Important Links
