Important Judgements on CPC

Case Section Facts Issue Observation Decision

Gundaji Section Plaintiff sued for Whether the Observations: If there is an issue
Satwaji 9 plaintiff is an
specific performance There can be a civil suit properly which had to be
Shinde v. agriculturist or
Ramachan of a contract for sale not, would the constituted which the civil court settled, decided or
civil court have
dra of agricultural land in jurisdiction to will have jurisdiction to dealt with by the
Bhikaji the civil court and decide the issue entertain but therein an issue competent
or the Civil
Joshi defendant appeared may arise upon a contest when authority under the
Court would
(AIR 1979 and raised a have to refer contentions are raised by the Tenancy Act, the
SC 653) contention in Sec 63 the issue under party against whom the civil suit jurisdiction of the
Sec. 85-A of the
of the Tenancy Act the Tenancy Act to is filed. Upon such contest, Civil Court,
the authority
plaintiff being not an constituted issues will have to be notwithstanding the
under the Act,
agriculturist, he is viz. Mamlatdar. determined to finally dispose of fact that it arises in
barred from the suit. If any such issue arise an incidental
purchasing the land. manner in a civil
which is required to be settled,
Such an issue being suit, will be barred
within the exclusive decided or dealt with by the and it will have to
competent authority under the
jurisdiction of the be referred to the
Tenancy Act, even if it arises in
Mamlatadar competent
civil suit, the jurisdiction of the
(competent authority authority under the
set up under the Civil Court to settle, decide and Tenancy Act.
deal with the same would be
Tenancy Act). Therefore court
barred by the provision
overruled the
contained in Sec. 85 and the decision of the High
Civil Court will have to take
Court, upholding the
recourse to the provision
jurisdiction of the
contained in Sec. 85-A for Civil court to deal
reference of the issue to the
with the issue
competent authority under the
instead of referring
Tenancy Act.
it to the Mamlatdar.
The court further observed that
a suit for specific performance

of a contract for sale of land is

cognizable by the civil court and
its jurisdiction would not be

ousted merely because contract,

if enforced, would violate some

provisions of the Tenancy Act, If
contract when enforced would

violate some provisions of the

Tenancy Act it may be that the
competent authority under the

Tenancy Act, it may be that the

competent authority under the

tenancy Act may proceed to
take action as permissible under

the law but the Court cannot

refuse to enforce the contract.

2 Indian Section Bank filed Summary Whether the bar The word “trial” in Section 10, in The bar to proceed
Bank v. 10- Res Suit in the Bombay to proceed with its widest sense would include with trial of

Maharash Sub High Court under trial of all the proceedings from the subsequently
tra State
Judice Order 37 of the Code subsequently stage of institution of a plaint in instituted suit,
Co-
operative against the Federation instituted suit, a civil case to the stage of final contained in Sec. 10
for obtaining a decree contained in determination by a judgments is not applicable to
Marketing
Fed. Ltd. for Rs. 4,96,59,160 Sec.10 is and a decree of the Court. summary suit filed

(AIR 1998 alleging that the said applicable to However, in view of the object under Order 37 of
SC 1952) amount has become summary suit and nature of the provision and the CPC.

recoverable under a filed under the fairly settled legal position

Letter of Credit. The Order 37 of the with respect to passing of

Bank took out Code. interlocutory orders it has to be
summons for stated that the word ‘trial’ in

judgment. The Sec. 10 is not used in its widest

Federation appeared sense.
before the Court and Considering the objects of both

took out Notice of the provisions i.e. Sec. 10 and O.

Motion seeking stay of 37, wider interpretation of the

the summary suit on word “trial” is not called for. The
the ground that it has word ‘trial’ in Sec. 10 in the

already instituted a context of summary suit cannot

suit being Suit against be interpreted to mean the
the Bank for recovery entire proceedings starting with

of Rs. 3,70,52,217.88 the institution of the suit by

prior to the filing of lodging a plaint. In a summary
the summary suit. suit the ‘trial’ really begins after

the Court/Judge grants leave to

the defendants to contest the

suit. Therefore, the Court/Judge
dealing with the summary suit

can proceed up to the stage of

hearing the summons for
judgement and passing the

judgement in favour of the

plaintiff if (a) the defendant has

not applied for leave to defend
or if such application has been

made and refused or if (b) the

defendant who is permitted to
defend fails to comply with the

conditions on which leave to

defend is granted.

3.Iftikar Section There was conflict of Whether earlier The SC held that if following 4 The SC held that
Ahmed v.
11- Res interest among co- decision of the principles were satisfied then it since the four
Syed
Meharban judicat plaintiffs. In the court regarding would operate as res- juducata- conditions were
a previous suit, Ishtaq the title of the 1)-There must be a conflict of satisfied in the case

betwe Ahmed, K.Fatima, Property in interest between the parties. and thus the

Ali, AIR en co M.Ali (Co-plaintiffs) question would 2)-It is necessary to decide that principle of res
1977 SC defend instituted a suit operate as res- conflict in order to give relief judicata has to
749 ant judicata in and determine the issue in the operate.
against the between the case.
4. State of Section parties. 3)-That such a conflict has been The plea taken in
U.P. v. 11, mortgagee, relating to conclusively determined. the subsequent suit
Nawab Explan Whether a 40)-The Co-defendants were was an important
Hussain ation shares of the latter decision of the necessary or proper parties in plea which was
IV- two in mortgaged High Court on the former suit. within the
(AIR 1977 Constr merits on a knowledge of the
SC 1680) uctive properties.in that suit certain matter The provisions of Sec. 11 CPC petitioner when he
“Constructiv Resjudi after contest, in are not exhaustive with respect filed the previous
e Res cata it was decided that a writ petition to an earlier decision operating writ petition and
Judicata” only Ishtaq Ahmed under Art. 226 as res judicata between the this plea could well
of the same parties on the same have been taken in
had title to the Constitution, matter in controversy in a the same petition.
operates as res subsequent regular suit and that
properties and other judicata in a on the general principle of res
regular suit with judicata, any previous decision
two had no title. The respect to the on a matter in controversy,
question of title which same matter decided after full contest or
between the after affording a fair opportunity
was in dispute was same parties. to the parties to prove their case
by a Court competent to decide
conclusively it, will operate as res judicata in
determined by a a subsequent regular suit. It is
not necessary that the court
competent court. In deciding the matter formerly be
a competent to decide the
the later suit the subsequent suit or that the

dispute was in
between Ishtaq

Ahmed on the one

hand and K. Fatima
and M. Ali on the

other hand regarding

the same property.
The matter was

referred to the

arbitrator.

In this case, the
petitioner was

dismissed from

service. He filed a writ
petition on the ground

of denial of

opportunity of being

heard and that the
action taken against

him was mala fide.

After that dismissal of
petition he filed

another petition

alleging that he was

appointed by the
Inspector General of

Police and he was

dismissed by the
Deputy I.G. He alleged

that the latter was not

empowered to dismiss former proceeding and the
him and therefore his subsequent suit have the same

order of dismissal was subject-matter.

by a person who did

not have the power to
do so. He further

contended that, he

was not afforded a
reasonable

opportunity to meet

the case against him

in the departmental
inquiry and that the

action taken against

was mala fide.

5. C.A. O.2 In the present case, Whether O.2, The principle underlying O.2, R.2 If second suit is
Rule 2.
Balakrishn the prayer in the writ R.2 applies to being based upon public policy, barred, a writ
an v.
petition is for the the writ petition a person who files a suit seeking petition would
Commissi issuance of a writ of or not? certain relief in respect of a equally be barred,
oner,
mandamus directing cause of action is precluded public policy
Corpn. of
Madras the respondent to from instituting another suit for underlying O.2, R.2
restore the possession seeking other reliefs in respect is attracted with
(AIR 2003
MAD 120) of the premises to the of same cause of action under equal vigor in this

petitioner, a licensee. O.2, R.2. The relinquishment of situation also.
It is admitted fact that part of claim is not permissible

the petitioner has and omission to sue for one of

filed original suit for several reliefs is also prohibited.

mandatory injunction Likewise, the same person
of restoration of cannot be allowed to invoke the

possession to him of writ jurisdiction of this court for

the premises, which obtaining the very same reliefs.
was dismissed and

which is also the

subject matter of the

writ petition.

6. Section Much before the Topic 6 : a) Not disputed that this is a As far as the
Appeals Question of law since what merits of this Case
Chunnilal 100 expiry of contractual Apellent is challenging is the are concerned, Cl
v. Mehta Whether the interpretation of some 14 is clear. And
(Secon period, the contruction of clauses of a document. But is sets out the
v. Century d respondent company a document of this an SQOL ? If it is decided precise sum to be
Spining title which is so, then per A 133(1), the HC claimed as
Appeal removed the foundation of was required to certify it so damages. Once
and done, they must
Manufact ) appellants as the rights of
managing agent. The the parties
raises a
appellants filed a suit

uring Co. in the Bombay High question of and so, in not giving the be deemed to
Ltd., AIR Court Claiming law and the Certificate it was wrong. exclude the right
1962 SC damages. The H.C b) In an earlier Bombay to claim an
1314 decided in favour of interpretation Case, it was held that merely unascertained
the respondent of such becasue an inference was to sum as damages.
7. Koppi company. The be drawn from a complicated So, Cl 10 and 12
Setty v. Appellants moved to document Decree, no SQOL would do not hold any
Ratnam. SC by special leave. arise. OTOH, in a Nagpur more since the
V. raises a case it was held that an profit herein is not
Pamarti Section Substantial Question substantial SQOL arises if it is important yet ascertained.
Venka 100 of Law between the parties and the Hence the decree
question of case turns on that. SC of the HC on this
Law ? disagreed with both these matter is held.
views and agreed with that of
Madras High Court ( R.
Subba Rao v. N. Veeraja )
and set out the following
principles of a SQOL
a) It directly and
substantially affects the
rights of the parties. It need
not be a question of general
importance.
b) It is an open question,
not finally settled by this
Court or there is a doubt
about the principle of law
involved, or calls for
discussion of alternative
views.
c) If the question is
ALREADY well settled or
its general principles are
well settled and only its
application remains or that
the plea raised is palpably
absurd, then it is NOT a
SQOL., howsoever difficult it
maybe or howsoever large its
affect ( Pankaj V Mohinder
AIR 1991 )

Recommendation of Law

commission in 1973 amended
section 100 which made it

compulsorily to formulate

substantial question of law.

An unqualified right of first
appeal may be necessary for

2009 RLR the satisfaction of the defeated
27 (NSC) litigant but wide right of 2nd

appeal is more a luxury.

8. Gill & Sectio Eviction notice to Whether the Now high courts have only in Jurisdiction of the
n M/S Gill & Co on learned case where substantial question High Court in
co. v. 107, R grounds of tribunal was of laws are involved and those 2nd Appeal is
Bimla ule 27 (a) non-payment of correct in questions have been clearly confined to the
of rent; rejecting the formulated in the Memo of determination of
Kumari, Order (b)misuse , application for appeal substantial
1986 RLR XLI of (c) bona fide production of question of law
370 the requirement as additional • The general rule is that and not to reverse
Code residence for herself evidence. an appellate court shall decide the findings of fact.
and members of her an appeal on the evidence led Hence High Court
family ; by the parties before the lower in 2nd appeal
(d) Sub-letting. Court and shall not admit cannot re-
additional evidence for the appreciate the
purpose of disposal of an evidence and
appeal. interfere with the
• Evidently it is not a case findings of fact
where the lower Court had reached by the
improperly refused to admit lower appellant
evidence. It was never tendered. court, unless of
• Likewise, it is not the course, it can be
case of the appellants that the shown that there
additional evidence sought to be was an error of
produced by them at the law in arriving at it
appellate stage was not within or that it was
their knowledge or that the based on no
same could not be produced evidence at all or
after exercise of due diligence was arbitrary,
No such effort seems to have unreasonable or
been made. perverse. The
• The only question which High Court was
falls for consideration is incompetent to re-
whether the additional evidence assess the
was required by the Appellate evidence afresh
Court for enabling it to and it was bound
pronounce judgment or was by the decision of
there any other substantial the Tribunal on
cause for allowing the same. questions of fact.

TOPIC-7
REFERENCE

9. Haridas S.114 What is the • In order to appreciate When the aforesaid
Das v. r/w scope of the scope of a review, Section principles are
review under 114 of the CPC has to be read,
Smt. Usha O.46 Section 114 but this section does not even applied to the
Rani read with adumbrate the ambit of
Order XLVII of interference expected of the background facts of
Banik, CPC. Court since it merely states that
2006 (3) it may make such order thereon the present case,
as it thinks fit. the position is clear
SCALE 287 • The parameters are
prescribed in Order XLVII of the that the High Court
CPC and for the purposes of this
lis, permit the defendant to had clearly fallen in
press for a rehearing on account error in accepting
of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the the prayer for
records or for any other
sufficient reason. review. First, the
• The former part of the
rule deals with a situation crucial question
attributable to the applicant, which according to
and the latter to a jural action
which is manifestly incorrect or the High Court was
on which two conclusions are
not possible. Neither of them necessary to be
postulate a rehearing of the adjudicated was the
dispute because a party had not
highlighted all the aspects of the question whether
case or could perhaps have
argued them more forcefully the Title Suit No.
and/or cited binding precedents
to the Court and thereby 201 of 1985 was
enjoyed a favourable verdict. barred by the

• This is amply evident provisions of Order
from the explanation in Rule 1
of the Order XLVII which states II Rule 2 CPC. This
that the fact that the decision question arose in
on a question of law on which
the judgment of the Court is Title Suit No.1 of
based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent 1986 and was
decision of a superior Court in irrelevant so far as
any other case, shall not be a
ground for the review of such Title Suit No.2 of
judgment.
1987 is concerned.

Additionally, the
High Court erred in

holding that no

prayer for leave
under Order II Rule

2 CPC was made in

the plaint in Title

Suit No.201 of 1985.
The claim of oral

agreement dated

19.8.1982 is
mentioned in para 7

of the plaint, and at

the end of the plaint

it has been noted
that right to

institute suit for

specific
performance was

reserved. That being

• Where the order in so the High Court
question is appealable the has erroneously
aggrieved party has adequate
and efficacious remedy and the held about
Court should exercise the power
to review its order with the infraction of Order II
greatest circumspection.
Rule 2 CPC. This was
• A perusal of the Order not a case where
XLVII, Rule 1 show that review of
a judgment or an order could be Order II of Rule 2
sought : (a) from the discovery
of new and important matters CPC has any
or evidence which after the application.
exercise of due diligence was
not within the knowledge of the The order of the
applicant; (b) such important
matter or evidence could not be High Court is clearly
produced by the applicant at the
time when the decree was contrary to law as
passed or order made; and (c) laid down by this
on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of Court. The judgment
record or any other sufficient
reason. of the High Court in
review application is

set aside.

Consequently,

judgment and order
passed in the

Second Appeal

stand restored.
Appeal is allowed

with no order as to

costs.

• In Aribam Tuleshwar

Sharma v. Aribam Pishak

Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1047) this
Court held that there are

definite limits to the exercise of

power of review. In that case, an
application under Order XLVII,

Rule 1 read with Section 151 of

the Code was filed which was

allowed and the order passed by
the judicial Commissioner was

set aside and the writ petition

was dismissed.

The court held that the power of

review may be exercised on the

discovery of new and important
matter of evidence which, after

the exercise of due diligence

was not within the knowledge of
the person seeking the review

or could not be produced by him

10. Section The appellant had TOPIC-8 at the time when the order was the Apex court set
INHERENT made, it may be exercised
Mahant 148, filed a suit for the where some mistake or error aside the order of
Ram Das declaration that he POWERS OF apparent on the face of the
149 & COURT (S.151) record is found; it may also be the High court not
v. Mahant 151 was nominated exercised on any analogous to enlarge the time,
Ganga Mahant of Moghal Whether the ground. But, it may not be
exercised on the ground that and held that the
Das, AIR Juan Sangat which High court in the decision was erroneous on
1961 SC the merits. That would be the High court could
was dismissed by province of a Court of appeal. A have exercised its
882 the trial judge. The circumstances power of review is not to be
of the case, confused with appellate power powers first under S.
appeal was decided which may enable an Appellate
in his favour on was powerless Court to correct all manner of 148 and then under
errors committed by the
condition that he to enlarge the Subordinate Court s. 151, CPC.
time, even
pay the deficient S.148 of the code, in terms,
court fees, within though it had allows extension of time even if
peremptorily the original period fixed has
the time specified expired, and S. 149 is equally
by the court. Before fixed the liberal. A fortiori, these sections
could be invoked by the
the expiry of the period for applicant, when the time had
payment? not actually expired.
period of three Such procedural orders, as in
months,he had filed this case to pay the court fees
within the time fixed, though
an application under peremptory are in essence, in
section 148 and 149 terrorem, so that dilatory
litigants put themselves in order
read with section and avoid delay. They do not,
however, completely estop a
151 CPC for court from taking note of events
extension of time and circumstances which
happen within the time fixed.

was dismissed by
the High court.

11. Jai Jai O.6 Manohar lal TOPIC-10 The plaintiff was carrying on The name in which
Ram Rule 17 commenced an action business as commission agent in the action was
Manohar against the defendant AMENDMENT the name of “Jai Jai Ram instituted was
Lal v. O.6 .The action was Manohar Lal.” The Plaintiff was merely a
National Rule 17 initiated in the name OF PLEADINGS competent to sue in his own misdescription of
Building of “Jai Jai Ram [O.VI,RULE 17] name as Manager of the Hindu original plaintiff, no
Material Manohar Lal” which undivided family to which the question of
Supply was the name in Whether there business belonged. He says he limitation arises; the
Co., AIR which the business should be an sued on behalf of the family in plaint must be
1969 SC was carried on.The the business name. deemed on
1267 plaintiff applied for amendment or There is no rule that unless in an amendment to have
leave to amend the application for amendment of been instituted in
12. M/S paint. not really turns the plaint it is expressly averred the name of the real
Ganesh upon whether that the error, omission or plaintiff on the date
Trading Appellant-plaintiff m/s misdescription is due to a on which it was
Co. v. Ganesh Trading the suit is bonafide mistake, the court has originally instituted.
Moji Ram, Co.,Karnal, had filed a brought is the no power to grant leave to
AIR 1978 suit through Shri jai amend the plaint. The power to The order passed by
SC 484 Prakash, a partner of name of a non- grant amendment of the the Trial court in
that firm, based on a pleadings is intended to serve granting the
promissory note. It existent the ends of justice and is not amendment was
was asserted that the person or governed by any such narrow or clearly right, and the
suit was incompetent technical limitations. High court was in
for want of whether it is error in dismissing
registration of the merely a Procedural law is intended to the suit on a
facilitate and not to obstruct the technically wholly
misdescription course of substantive justice. unrelated to the
A party cannot be refused relief merits of the
of existing merely because of some dispute.
persons. mistake, negligence,
inadvertence or even infraction The suit having been
of the rules of procedure. instituted by one of
the partners of a
dissolved firm the
mere specification
of the capacity in
which the suit was
filed could not
change the
character of the suit
or the case. It made

firm and was struck by no difference to the
the provisions of s.69 rest of the pleadings

of the Indian or to the cause of

Partnership Act.The action. Indeed, the

Plaintiff filed an amendment only
amendment sought to give

application wherein it notice to the

was stated that the defendant of the
plaintiff had facts which the

“inadvertenently plaintiff would and

omitted certain could have tried to

material facts which prove in any case.
are not (now) This notice was
being given, out of
necessary to
abundant caution,
incorporate in the so that no technical
plaint so as to enable
objection may be
the court to consider
taken that what was
and decide the subject
sought to be proved
matter of the suit.” was outside the

13. Dalip O.6 The plaintiff filed an The Purpose of O.6 Rule 17 is to pleadings.
Kaur v. Rule 17 application under O.6 allow either party to alter or
Major Rule 17 seeking The amendment
Singh, AIR O.6 amendment of the amend his pleadings in such does not defeat any
1996 P & Rule 17 plaint by making a
H 107 prayer for declaring manner and on such terms as legal right allegedly
the judgement and may be just. The power to allow
“Principles decree passed in civil having accrued to
were laid suit entitled Major the amendment is wide and can the opposite party
down while Singh v. Balbir Kaur as
dealing null and void and be exercised at any stage of the and the delay in
with ineffective against the
application rights of the plaintiff. proceedings in the interest of filing the petition for
of justice on the basis of guidelines
amendment The respondent- amendment can
” plaintiff filed a suit laid down by various high courts properly be
against the appellant
14. B.K. –defendant praying and Supreme court of India. compensated by
Narayan for the grant of
Pillai v. mandatory and costs.
Paramesw prohibitory injunction
aran, seeking eviction Principles were laid down
(2000) 1 allegedly on the
SCC 712 while dealing with
application of amendment”

The Purpose of O.6 Rule 17 is to The appellant-

allow either party to alter or defendant is

amend his pleadings in such permitted to amend

manner and on such terms as the written
may be just. The power to allow statement to the

the amendment is wide and can extent of

be exercised at any stage of the incorporating the
proceedings in the interest of plea of his

justice on the basis of guidelines entitlement to the

ground of his being a laid down by various high courts benefit of s.60(b) of
license. and Supreme court of India. the Indian
Easements Act,
15. O.7 TOPIC 11- O.7 Rule 11 makes it clear that 1882 only subject to
Saleem Rule 11 REJECTION OF the relevant facts which need to his paying all the
be looked into for deciding an arrears on account
Bhai v. PLAINT (O.VII, application there under are the of licence fee and
State of averments in the plaint. costs assessed at
RULE 11) For the purpose of deciding an Rs.3000 within a
Maharash application under Clauses (a) period of one month
tra, AIR Whether an and (d) of O.7 Rule 11.,the from the date the
2003 SC averments in the plaint are parties appear in
application germane; the pleas taken by the trial court.
759 under O.7 Rule the defendant in the written
statement would be wholly Therefore a
11 ought to irrelevant at that stage. direction to file the
decided on the written statement
allegations in without deciding
the plaint and the application
filing of the under O.7 Rule 11
written cannot but be
statement by procedural
the contesting irregularity touching
defendant is the exercise of the
irrelevant and jurisdiction by the
unnecessary? trial court. So order
therefore suffers
from non-exercising
of the jurisdiction
vested in the court
as well as
procedural
irregularity.

TOPIC 12-

APPEARANCE
OF PARTIES

AND

CONSEQUENC
ES OF NON-

APPEARANCE
(ORDER

16.Sangra O.9 The defendant and his IX,RULES 6,7 The SC observed as: The SC held that
Rule 6 AND 13)
m Singh v. counsel both fail to 1) Ex parte proceedings do not though the
Election appear before the Whether ex mean that the defendant appellant cannot be
parte
Tribunal, Election Tribunal, as a cannot be allowed to appear at relegated to the
AIR 1955 proceedings
consequence of which all in the subsequent same position as he
SC 425 the Judge permits ex means total proceedings of the Suit. has failed to show
debarring of
parte proceedings. 2) If a party does not appear on good cause, he
the defendant
The defendant and his to appear “the day to which the hearing cannot be denied

counsel appeared on before the of the suit is adjourned”, he his right to contest
fourth hearing and cannot be stopped from and, be present on
court on any
insist that not only the subsequent participating in the proceedings subsequent dates.

order to proceed ex date or it simply because he did not
parte be reversed but merely means appear on the first or some

the defendant should that the other hearing.

also be permitted to defendant may 3) An omission to appear in
appear on a
cross-examine response to summons carriers
witnesses of the future date, no penalty in the strict sense.
however,
plaintiff who were 4) No form or procedure should
without any
examined in his right to undo ever be permitted to exclude
absence. the presentation of a litigant’s
what prejudice
defence.
has been
caused to his 5) The proceedings that affect

interest in the their lives and properly should
ex parte not continue in their absence

proceedings ? and that they should not be

precluded from participating in
them.

17. Rajni O.9 1. In this case, Whether the 1. The court observed that The Supreme Court
High Court
Kumar v. the appeal was filed a careful reading of Rule 4 did not find any
Suresh from the judgement committed shows that it empowers, under illegality in the order
jurisdictional
Kumar and order of the High special circumstances, the court under challenge to
malhotra, error in
2003 (3) Court of Delhi in the which passed an ex parte decree warrant
year 2001. In Delhi, declining to set under Order 37 to set aside the interference. The
SCALE 434 aside the ex
the appellant cum decree and grant one or both of court observed that
parte decree
tenant had taken a on the the following reliefs, if it seems liability in this case
residential flat on rent reasonable to the court so to do does not arise out of
application of
from the respondent and on such terms as the court a commercial
the appellant
cum landlord for a under Rule 4 thinks fit: (i) to stay or set aside transaction;

period of nine months of Order 37, on execution, and (ii) to give leave therefore, the court
under an agreement the ground to the defendant (a) to appear has reduced the

of lease in writing. that he failed to the summons, and (b) to rate of interest.

After the expiry of the to disclose defend the suit. Hence, the Supreme
tenancy, she Court made some

continued to occupy modifications in the

the said premises as facts sufficient 2. The expression ‘special trial court’s
tenant for a total of to entitle him circumstances’ is not defined in judgment and

around four years. It to defend the C.P.C. nor is it capable of dismissed the
suit?
was alleged that the any precise definition by the appeal.
• In an
appellant did not pay court because problems of
the electricity and application human beings are so varied and
under Order
water consumption complex. In its ordinary
37, Rule 4, the
charges for the said court has to dictionary meaning it connotes
period. something exceptional in
determine the
2. The character,
question, on
respondent filed a the facts of extraordinary, significant,

case under Order 36 each case, as uncommon. It is an antonym of
of CPC in Civil court to whether common, ordinary and general.

for the recovery of circumstances It is neither practicable nor

electricity and water pleaded are so advisable to enumerate such
consumption charges unusual or circumstances. Non-service of

for the period. The extraordinary summons will undoubtedly be a
as to justify
civil court noted the special circumstances.
putting the
fact that the summons clock back by 3. In this case, though
were sent via appellant has shown sufficient
setting aside
registered post to the cause for his absence on the
the decree; to
appellant, proceeded grant further date of passing ex parte decree,
with the case and he failed to disclose facts which
relief in regard
decreed the suit ex to post-decree would entitle him to defend the

parte. matters, case. The respondent was right
3. The appellant, in his submission that in the
namely,
however, filed staying or application under Rule 4 of

application under Rule setting aside Order 37, the appellant did not
the execution
4 of Order 37 C.P.C. in say a word about any amount
the trial Court to set and also in being in deposit with the

aside the ex parte regard to pre respondent or that the suit was
decree matters
decree. The not maintainable under Order
application was viz. to give 37. From a perusal of the order
leave to the
dismissed as no under challenge, it appears to us
defendant to
special circumstances that the High Court was right in
appear to the
were stated in the summons and accepting existence of special
petition both in record circumstances justifying his not
to defend the
to there being suit. seeking leave of the court to

illegality in deeming defend, but in declining to grant
service of summons relief since he had mentioned

for judgment on the no circumstances justifying

appellant as well facts any defence.

sufficient to entitle 4. In an application under
him to defend the Order 9 Rule 11, if a defendant

suit. Aggrieved by the is set ex parte and that order

order of the trial is set aside, he would be entitled
court, the appellant to participate in the proceedings

appealed in the High from the stage he was set ex

18. Bhanu O.9 Court, which was also parte. But an application under The impugned
dismissed in the year Order 9 Rule 13 could be filed
Kumar 2001. judgement is set
Jain v. 4. The on any of the grounds aside and the case
appellant’s counsel
contended that there mentioned thereunder only remitted to the HC
was no proof or
record to show that after a decree is passed ex parte
any notice by against defendant. If the court is
registered post with
acknowledgement satisfied that (1) summons was
due was issued to the
appellant by the not duly served, or (2) he was
respondent who had prevented by sufficient cause
taken the notice from
the court but did not from appearing when the suit
file any proof of
issuing the notice to was called for hearing, it has to
the appellant,
therefore, there was make an order setting aside the
special reason for the decree against him on such
appellant not to
appear in response to terms as to cost or payment into
the summons for
judgment. court or otherwise as it thinks fit
5. The and thereafter on the day fixed
respondent submitted
that nowhere in her for hearing by court, the suit
application had the
appellant stated would proceed as if no ex parte
anything about her
defence to the suit decree had been passed.
and therefore the 5. The Supreme Court
order under challenge
was rightly passed by observed that Rule 4 of Order 37
the courts below.
is different from Rule 13 of
The remedies Order 9. The court observed
available to a
defendant in that Rule 4 of Order 37

specifically provides for setting
aside decree, therefore,

provisions of Rule 13 of Order 9

will not apply to a suit filed

under Order 37. In this case, an
application under Rule 4 of

Order 37 is filed to set aside a

decree and it is not enough for
the defendant to show special

circumstances which prevented

him from appearing or applying

for leave to defend, he has also
to show by affidavit or

otherwise, facts which would

entitle him leave to defend the
suit. It was also observed that in

a suit under Order 37, the

procedure for appearance of

defendant is governed by
provisions of Rule 3 thereof.

When an application under O.9

Rule 13 is dismissed the
defendant can only avail a

remedy available there against

Archana the event of an viz. to prefer an appeal in terms for consideration of
Kumar, ex parte of O.43 Rule 1 of the Code. Once the case of the
decree being such an appeal dismissed, the
AIR 2005 passed against appellant cannot raise the same parties on merit of
SC 626 him in terms of contention in the first appeal. If
O9 Rule 13 and it be held that such a contention the matter.
the extent and can be raised both in the first
19. O.37 limitation appeal as also in the
thereof is in proceedings arising from an
Santosh O.37 question. application under O 9 Rule 13, it
Kumar v. ” may lead to conflict of decisions
TOPIC-13 which is not contemplated in
Bhai Mool SUMMARY law.
Singh, AIR PROCEDURE
(O.37,RULES 1- The test is to see whether the
1958 SC 4) defence raises a real issue and
321 The issue in not a sham one, if the facts
this case allegedly by the defendants are
20. M/s related to established, there would be a
Mechalec leave to good or even a plausible
defend the suit defence on those facts.
Engineers under O.37,
and R.3, C.P.C.
Manufatu
The Plaintiff, a Any decision on the question The SC held that the
rers v. that the defences could be
Basic partnership firm, filed honest and bona fide, even order passed by the
before evidence has been led by
Equipmen a suit for the recovery the two sides, is generally trial court was
t of certain amount on hazardous. correct and the high

Corporati the strength of a In Kiranmoyee Dassi v. court wrongly
on, AIR Chatterjee (AIR 1949 Cal 479),
cheque drawn by the The Calcatta HC has laid down interfered with it. In
1977 SC the following principles relating
577 defendant which in to suits of summary nature- other words, an
presentation, was unconditional leave

dishonoured. to defend to be

The suit was filed granted to the
under O.37 so that the defendant.

“Priciples defendant had to 1)If the defendant satisfied the
court that he has a good
were laid apply for leave to
down in this defence to claim on its merits,
defend. This leave was
case for granted the plaintiff is not entitled to
leave to sign judgement and
unconditionally by the
the defendant is entitled to
trial court. However
the HC found that unconditional leave to defend.

defences were not

bona fide and thus set
aside the order of the

granting trial court. Now 2)-If the defendant raises “a
leave to matter came before triable issue” he is entitled to
unconditional leave to defend.
defend SC.
3)-If the defendant has no
defence or the defence set up is
illusory or sham or practically
moonshine, then ordinarily the
plaintiff in entitled to sign
judgment and defendant is not
entitled to leave to defend.

21. ONGC O.37 The appellant entered Whether leave In the absence of a plea relating When, in fact, there

Ltd. V. into a contract with a to defend to fraud, much less of a finding is no defence for suit
State consortium of M/s. unconditionally thereto, we find that the High filed, merely to rely

Bank of Saipem was to be Court could not have stated that upon an injunction
India, AIR
SPA/Snamprogetti of granted to the the defence raised by the granted or obtained
2000 SC
2548 Italy for construction defendant or respondent Bank on the grounds in their favour does
of a system of not? set forth earlier is sufficient to not carry the case of

undersea pipelines. hold that unconditional leave the respondent Bank

The contract provided should be granted to defend the any further.
for liquidated suit. Therefore, in our

damages if the view, the High Court

contractor failed to plainly erred in
complete the entire having granted leave

works or any part to defend

thereof before the unconditionally.

respective scheduled
completion date. The

contractor was

obliged to furnish a
‘bank guarantee to

cover liquidated

damages.’ In case the

contractore fails to
provide the guarantee

for liquidated

damages within the
time stipulated

therein, the appellants

shall be entitled to

encash the
performance

guarantee. Inc

compliance with this
requirement, the

contractor had

furnished a bank
guarantee from the

State Bank of India

(SBI), Overseas

Branch, Bombat, to
cover the liquidated

damages claim.

Contractor as well as
the Bank not having

honoured the bank

guarantee, the

apellant asked the
respondent bank to

vredit the said

guarantee along with
the interest. On Dec 3,

1993 the respondent

Bank stated that they

have issued the
guarantee in favour of

ONGC against the

‘counter guarantee’ of
the Italian Bank

Credito, Milan and the

contractor obtained
an order of injunction

from an Italian Court

restraining Credito

italiano from making
any payment to the

respondent Bank

under the counter
guarantee. The high

court by order granted

unconditional leave to

defend the suit

22. O.39 TOPIC-14 The Sc observed as follows: The SC held that it
Manohar
TEMPORARY can grant temporary
INJUNCTIONS injunction in

AND

INTERLOCUTO
RY ORDERS

(O.39, RULES
1-5)

Whether the
Court could not
exercise its

Lal v. Seth inherent powers 1)- It is well settled that the circumstances not
Hira Lal when there provisions of code are not covered under O.39.

AIR 1962 were specific exhaustive.
SC 527
provisions in the 2)- No party has a right to insist

C.P.C for on the court’s exercising
issuance of inherent jurisdiction and the

injunctions viz. court exercises it only when it

Sec. 94 and consider it absolutely necessary
Order 39. for the ends of justice. The

powers are to be exercised in

exceptional circumstances for

which the code lays down no
procedure.

3)-There is no such expression

in Sec.94 which expressly
prohibits the issue of temporary

injunction in circumstances not

covered by O.39.

4)-S.151 does not control or
limit the inherent power of the

court.

23. Dalpat O.39 The appellant had Whether HC The SC observed that grant of However, SC
Kaur v.
entered into an was right in injunction is a discretionary observed that HC
Prahlad granting ad- without averting
Singh, AIR agreement with the relief. One has to satisfy the
respondent to interim court for getting it on following to any material
1993 SC
276 purchase the house of injunction to points:- evidence like any
the act of damage,any
respondent and also (1) There is serious
respondent ? alienation made
paid some advance Order 39 rule disputed question to be triedin etc held that
but he could not get the suit and that on facts before
1(c) – balance of
the possession. Then the court, there is probability of
Injunction may convenience lies in
appellant filed a suit be granted his being entitled to the relief favour of granting
for specific asked for by the
where in a suit injunction , was
performance which , it is proved by plaintiff/defendant. totally wrong.So

was decreed ex-parte the affidavit or (2) Court’s interference is appeal was

and sale deed was otherwise that necessary to protect the party allowed and order
executed by the court. the defendant from the species of injury or of HC was set

Subsequently, threatens to damage would ensue before the aside and that of
dispossess the trial court was
respondent’s wife legal rights are established at
filed a suit against plaintiff or trial confirmed.

appellant and sought otherwise (3) That the comparative
cause injury to
temporary injunction hardship/mischief/inconvenienc
plaintiff in
against dispossession. relation to any e which is likely to occur will be
This was rejected by more if injunction is not granted

the court. This order rather than on being granted.

of lower court was Therefore, the plaintiff will have
confirmed by HC. to prove that there is a prima-

Then appellant filed facie case in his favour which

an execution petition property in the needs adjudication at trial for
which was allowed by suit. getting injunction. But court

the court despite will have to be made satisfied

opposition by that non interference by the

respondent. Then, court will result in irreparable
sons of petitioner filed injury to the party seeking relief

suit against this as and there is no other way

they called this remedy available to the party
property as joint except one to grant injunction

property and asked and he needs protection of the

for division of the court against dispossession.

property and Besides, Prima facie case is not
requested for interim to confused with prima-facie

injunction, which was title, which has to be established

rejected by both on evidence in trial.
lower court and HC. The irreparable loss, that is likely

Now the respondent to be caused to be such that it

filed fourth suit can’t be compensated by way of

stating that appellant damages.
was his counsel and The other condition that is to be

he had played fraud satisfied that “the balance of

with him and sought convenience” must be in favour
interim injunction of granting injunction. The

from dispossession. court must exercise sound

The trial court judicial discretion to find the
rejected the amount of substantial mischief

application but HC or injury which is likely to be

allowed the caused to the parties.

application and The phrases “prima-facie case”,
granted interim “balance of convenience” and

injunction restraining “irreparable loss” are words of

the appellants from substantial width and elasticity
taking possession. So, to meet the various situations

this appeal in SC. and circumstances but here

discretion is to be exercised very

judiciously to meet the ends of
justice.

Injunction can be granted If it’s

shown that fraud has been
perpetrated even if the matter

has been decreed otherwise

otherwise also but before

granting the injunction court will
have to be very circumspect and

must look to the conduct of the

party and whether plaintiff can
be adequately compensated if

injunction is refused.

24. Section A motorcar PART B: Court observed that if a Plaintiff’s action
R.B.Polici 3 belonging to RB LIMITATION person is not traceable, it barred by

es At Policies (Plaintiff) TOPIC 1: does not mean that he is limitation Act
Lloyd’s v. had stolen by SECTION 3-5 not in existence and cannot after expiry of 6

Butler some unknown i) At what the be sued. The cause of years from the
(1949) 2 persons on cause of action accrued to the date of accrual of

All ER 226 June,1940. In action is said Plaintiff against the thieves original cause of
January,1947, they to accrue? as soon as the motorcar action.

found the car in ii)Whether was stolen. No cause of
possession of Plaintiff’s action will lie against them

Defendant. During action is after six years. Limitation
the previous 6 barred under Act is based on public

years car had been Limitation policy that there should be
passed through Act,1939. an end to litigation. It is

several unfair to allow dormant
intermediate claims handing over
purchases before defendants for an

being passed to indefinite period and they
the Defendant. should be protected from

Now, Plaintiff sued stale demands. The
the Defendant for principle is that those who

wrongful sleep on their claims
detention of car. should not be assisted by

the courts in recovery of
their property.

25. Union Sec. 3, Respondents were Whether Appellant placed reliance Ratio of PK Kutty

of India v. Art. transporting goods period during on decision of court in PK case overruled,
West 58 through Railways which the Kutty Anuja Raja v S/o the period of

Coast and (Appellant- matter was Kerela (1996) where it was limitation would
Paper 113 of respondent). In pending held that once the begin to run

Mills Ltd. the Feb,1964, freight before limitation period starts from date of
AIR 2004 Limita rates were Appellate running, it runs its full passing the

SC 1596 tion increased sharply. Court would course until it is appellate decree
Act. Challenging the included or interrupted by an order of and not from

unreasonable levy excluded in the court. The pendency of date of passing

of Respondent computing the appeal does not of Original
approach Railway the period of
amount to suspend the decree.
Rate Tribunal. limitation
Tribunal by a operation of running of

judgement dated limitation unless the
18.04.1966
operation of judgement is
declared the said
levy unjust, suspended by this court.

subsequent to It was contended that said
which appellants
suits were barred by
filed an application
for grant of special limitation, as the cause of

leave before SC. action for filing the same
Pending decision
arose immediately after
SCourt passed a
limited interim the judgement was passed

order. Later by the Tribunal on 8.4.1966
respondents filed
and thus in terms of Art.58
Two suits on
Dec,1972 and they were require to be

April,1974 for filed within a period of
recovery of the
excess amount of Three years from the said

freight illegally date (when right to sue
realized by
first accrued) as despite
appellant
the fact that SLP was

preferred there against, no

stay had been granted.

Apex Court observed that

in KP Kutty case court

failed to take into

consideration that once an

appeal is filed before this

Court and the same is

entertained the judgement

of the HC or the Tribunal is

in jeopardy. The subject-

matter of dispute unless

determined by the last

Court cannot be said to

have attained finality and

grant of stay of operation

of the judgement may not

be of much relevance once

this court grants SLP and

decides to hear the matter
on merit.

26. Section In this case the Whether The court observed that The appellant
Punjab 3 appellant bank Bank is
National entitled to the rules of limitation are bank did not act
Bank v. Section gave a loan of appropriate
Surendra 5 Rs.15000/- to one the debt due not meant to destroy the in violation of
Prasad “Suffici even when
Sinha, AIR Mr. SN Dubey on debt become right of parties. Sec.3 only any law , in
1992 SC 5th May,1984 and time-barred.
1815 bars the remedy , but does terms of the
the respondent i)What
27. and his wife stood approach not destroy the right which contract the
Collector, as guarantors,
the remedy relates to. The bank is entitled
executive security
bond and FD right to the debt continues to appropriate

receipts of Rs. to exist notwithstanding the debt due out
24000/-on that
the remedy is barred by of security (FDR)
behalf. The
principal debtor the limitation. Only in its custody.

committed default exception in which the
in payment of
remedy also becomes
debt. On maturity,
the appellant barred by the limitation is

adjusted the sum that the right itself is
due from the FDs
destroyed.
on Dec,1988.
Respondent Court held that Section 5 Delay was
was enacted in order to accordingly
alleged that debt
become barred by

limitation as on
May,1987. The

liability of the
respondent being
Coextensive with

that of principal
debtor, his liability

also stood
extinguished on

May,1987.

In this case Court

considered the

Land ent question of the courts should enable the court to do condoned, the
Acquisitio Cause” limitation in an adopt while substantial justice to the order was set

n, appeal preferred dealing with parties by disposing of aside.
Anantnag by the State arising application matters on merits. It laid

v. Katiji, out of a decision for down guidelines for
AIR 1987 HC enhancing condonation application of ‘sufficient

SC 1353 compensation in of delay. cause’ principle. The
respect of ii)Whether expression "sufficient

acquisition of same cause is of wide amplitude
lands for public standard of to enable the courts to

purpose and ‘Sufficient apply the law in a
rejecting an cause’ test be meaningful manner which

application for applied to all subserves the ends of the
condonation of litigants justice-that being the life-

delay. regardless of purpose for the existence
their of the institution of courts.

personality This Court reiterated that
including the the expression "every day's

State. delay must be explained"
does not mean that a

pedantic approach should
be made. The doctrine
must be applied in a

rational common sense
pragmatic manner. When

substantial justice and
technical considerations

are pitted against each
other, cause of substantial

justice deserves to be
preferred for the other side

cannot claim to have
vested right in injustice

being done because of a
non-deliberate delay.

There is no presumption
that delay is occasion

deliberately. Refusing to
condone delay can result in

a meritorious matter being

thrown out at the very
threshold and cause of

justice being defeated. As
against this when delay is

condoned the highest that
can happen is that a cause

would be decided on
merits after hearing the

parties.
The doctrine of

equality before law
demands that all litigants,

including the State as a
litigant, are accorded the

same treatment and the
law is administered in an

evenhanded manner rather
than step-motherly

treatment. Impersonal
machinery, inherited

bureaucracy (slow moving)
is difficult to approve. The
State which represent

collective cause of the
community, does not

deserve a litigant-non-grata
status. The courts,

therefore, have to be
informed with the spirit

and philosophy of the
provision

28. State Section In an incident of Correctness That discretion given by In view of he
5
of shoot-out and of the Sec. 5 should receive a factual
Nagaland death, a judgement
liberal construction (India background,
v. Lipok judgment of rendered by
AO (2005) acquittal was Guwahati Insurance Co.Ltd V Shanti and legal
passed Addl. Dy HC, Kohima
3 SCC 752 Misra). What principles, delay
Commissioner.
As there was constitutes sufficient of 57 days

cause cannot be laid condoned & HC

down by hard and fast order set aside.

delay in making rules. The background
the application facts involved assume

for grant of importance like whether
leave, application appellant acted with
for condonation reasonable diligence in

of delay was filed prosecuting the appeal,
but rejected by unless want of bona fides

Guwahati HC of such inaction or
observing that negligence as to deprive
merely that a party from protection

inspite of of sec 5 is proved, the
instructions application must not be
appeal could not thrown out and delay

be filed and that cannot be refused to be
records were condoned (brij Indar
missing was not a Singh V Kanshi Ram) .

valid ground. Condonation of delay is a
question of fact
dependent upon the

facts and circumstances
of the particular case

(S/o Kerela v EK
Kuriyipe). In OP
Kathpalia v Lakhmir

Singh, SC held that if the
refusal to condon the day
results in grave

miscarriage of justice, it
would be a ground to
condon the delay. In

litigations where Govt.
is a party, there is yet

another aspect which
perhaps cannot be
ignored (redtop, slow

decision making), if
appeals brought by Govt.

are lost for such defaults,
no person is individually

affected but in ultimate
analysis public interest
suffers. However, courts

should decide the
matters on merit unless

the case s hopelessly
without merit. No
separate standards to

determine the cause laid
by the State vis-à-vis
private litigant could be

laid to prove strict
standards of sufficient
cause.

29. The Section An appeal filed by the TOPIC -2 (SEC. S.12(2) shall apply for Thus it was held
Commissi
12 respondent against an 12,17-19,21) determining any period of that the high court
oner of
Sales Tax, “Time order of the Sales Tax CAN THE TIME limitation for any purpose was correct in its
Requisi Officer was disposed TAKEN BY THE prescribed by any local or order in excluding
U.P v. M/s RESPONDENT IN
Madan Lal te” off by the Additional OBTAINING special law insofar as they are the time period for
ANOTHER COPY
das & Commissioner, Sales OF THE ORDER not expressly excluded by such obtaining another
Sons BE EXCLUDED
Bareilly, Tax, Bareilly. A copy of WHILE special or local law. The UP Sales copy of the order
the appellate order COMPUTING Tax Act nowhere expressly bars from the
AIR 1977
SC 523 was served to the LIMITATION the application of s12(2), and computation of the
PERIOD, WHEN
respondent. The ONE COPY HAD thus, it shall apply in the period of limitation
respondent lost the ALREADY BEEN following case.
SERVED UPON
copy and applied to HIM? The respondent was not

obtain another copy. required to file the copy of the

After receiving the order with the revision petition.
copy, he filed for But this cannot be a ground for

revision before the non application of s12(2), as

judge, more than a nowhere does the section say
year after the that the period for obtaining the

judgement. S 10 of the copy will be excluded only if

UP Sales Tax Act such a copy is required to be

prescribes the period filed along with the revision
of limitation as one petition. It is not permissible to

year from date of insert such a proviso in the

service of the order, section when the legislature has

but on proof of not inserted it. Also, the
sufficient cause, the respondent would not have

revising authority may been in a position to decide

entertain an whether to file for revision or

application within a not and if so, on what grounds,
further period of six without a copy of the order.

months. The A copy of the order was served

respondent relied on s upon the respondent, and it was
12(2) of the Limitation contended by the petitioner

Act, and said he was that filing for another copy, as

entitled to exclude the such, was not necessary. It is

time spent in found that the copy served upon
obtaining a copy of the respondent was lost by him,

the appellate order which necessitated the filing for

while computing another copy.
period of limitation.

The high court

decided in favour of

the respondent. The
high court’s decision

was challenged.

30. State Section The respondents were WHAT IS THE The expression time requisite The supreme court
of U.P v. 12(2)
tried for various PROPER cannot be understood to be the thus excluded the
Maharaj
Narain, offences. The Sessions INTERPRETATIO time absolutely necessary for whole period as
judge acquitted them. N OF obtaining the copy of the order. time requisite for
AIR 1968
SC 960 The state went up in LEGISLATURE S 12(2 )permits the appellant to obtaining a copy of

appeal against the FOR deduct the time taken for the order under S

order of the acquittal. CALCULATING obtaining a copy of the order 12(2) and held the
This appeal was ‘TIME from the limitation time in filing appeal within time.

dismissed as being REQUISITE’ FOR the appeal, but lays no

barred by application RECEIVING obligation on the appellant to be
of limitation, as the COPY OF prompt in his application for a

period of limitation ORDER? copy of the order. There is no

for an appeal from an justification for restricting the

order from an order of scope of the provision.
acquittal is three If the appellate courts are

months from the date required to find out in every

of the order. The appeal filed before them the
appellants (State) minimum time required for

appealed against the obtaining a copy of the order

correctness of the appealed from, it would be

order to the Supreme unworkable. This would create a
Court. The appellants great deal of confusion and

contended that the enquiries into the alleged delay

appeal was within not of the copies provided with
time as the ‘time the memorandum of appeal, but

requisite’ for of other copies which the

obtaining a copy of appellant might have got and
the order is excluded used for other purposes with

from the period of which the court has nothing to

limitation. The do.

appellants obtained ‘Time requisite for obtaining a
three copies of the copy of the decree’ mean the

order obtained time beyond the party’s control

against, and filed that occupied in obtaining the copy
copy of the order with which is filed with the

the memorandum of memorandum of appeal and not

appeal which took the an ideal lesser period which

maximum time for its might have been occupied if the
preparation. The high application for the copy had

court of Allahabad been filed on some other date.

31. Section had ruled in favour of Whether, and The court observed that the M.P High Court in
the respondents. money realized was under a
Mahabir 17. if so, which mistake and without the Surajdin v. State of
Kishore v. The writ petitions provision of authority of law. The appellant
effect also while paying suffered from M.P declared the
State of of challenging the the Limitation the same mistake. collection of 7 ½
M.P.,AIR Act will apply
fraud government’s right to The Trial court taking the view percent. Illegal and
1990 SC charge 7 ½ percent to such a suit? that Art. 62 and 96 of the first
313 or schedule of the Limitation act that decision was
mistak were pending in the were applicable and the period reported in 1960
of limitation would began to run
e M.P High Court , the from the dates the payments MPLJ 39, the
Government were made to the govt. held
that suit to be barred by government was
announced that it limitation and dismissed it. In still charging it
Appeal H.C applying A.113 r/w
would continue to sec.17 and not A.24 of the saying that the
charge it. The schedule to the Limitation Act
was applicable and held that the matter was under
Appellants thus paid limitation began to run from
October 17, 1961 on which date consideration of the
for the above the govt. decided to charge Govt. The Final
extra 7 ½ percent.
contracts a total extra decision of the govt.
sum of Rs.54,606.
letter dated 17
The suit was for October, 1961 was

refund of money paid purely an internal
under mistake of law.
communication of

the Govt. copy
whereof was never

communicated to

the appellants or
other liquor

contractors. There

could be therefore,

be no question of
the limitation

starting from that

date.

32. Section The appellants Whether the A valid oral mortgage comes The Judgment of the
suit for High Court is set
Sampuran 18 – purchased the suit redemption is into existence on the very day of aside.
Singh v. Effect property in the year barred by its execution. So the suit is time
time? Period of Limitation
Niranjan of 1959 from the original barred.Under sec.80, if the would start from the
Kaur TOPIC-4 very date the valid
ackno mortgagor, by limitation has already expired, it mortgage is said to
(smt.) AIR wledge registered sale deed. would not revive. It is only have been executed
1999 SC and hence the
1047 ment Whereas on 11-1- during subsistence of a period of
period of limitation
1960 the original limitation such document is of 60 years would
start from the very
mortgagee sold his executed that the limitation date of oral
right by a registered would be revived afresh from mortgage i.e March
1893.
deed to the the date of the

respondents, who acknowledgement. In the
acknowledged the present case, there is neither

existence of mortgage any deed nor document of

in question.In 1980, mortgage. Mortgage could be

appellants filed the redeemed at any time within 60
present suit for years from the date of

possession by way of mortgage.

redemption of the suit
land as against

respondents. The

appellants contended
that since there is

acknowledgement by

mortgage on 11-1-

1960, a fresh
limitation starts from

this date, hence, the

suit is within
limitation.

34. State Article The Plaintiff’s services Whether suit The Statute of limitation was The aggrieved party
of Punjab 113 of were terminated for intended to provide a time limit must approach the
for such relief
v. Gurdev C.P.C unauthorised absence for all suits conceivable. Sec. 3 court within the
Singh is not
without an enquiry. governed by of the Limitation Act provides prescribed period of
(1991) 4 He instituted the suit that a suit, appeal or application limitation. If the
SCC 1 any provisions
for declaration that of the instituted after the prescribed statutory time

the termination order Limitation Act, “period of limitation” must expires the court

was against the 1963? subject to the provisions of cannot give the
principles of natural Sections 4 to 24 be dismissed declaration sought

justice, terms and although limitation has not been for.

conditions of set up as a defence.
employment. The trial If the suit is not covered by any

court dismissed the of the specific articles

35. Ajaib Article suit on limitation. But Whether prescribing a period of So the SC set aside
Singh v. 137 of on appeal additional limitation, it must fall within the the the judgment
Sirhind C.P.C Limitation Act, residuary article.A.113 is a and decree of the
District Judge decreed 1963 will apply residuary article for cases not High Court.
Cooprativ covered by any other provisions
e the suit and held that to Industrial in the act. It prescribes a period The provisions of
of 3 years when the right to sue Articles 137 of the
Marketing no limitation is Dispute Act, accrues. The Words “right to schedule to the
—cum- prescribed for 1947? sue” ordinarily mean the right to Limitation Act, 1963
seek relief by means of legal are not applicable to
Processin challenging an illegal proceedings. the proceedings
g Service under the Industrial
order. Since the order It is not the function of the court Dispute Act and that
Society of termination is bad, to prescribe the limitation the relief under it
Ltd., AIR where the legislature in its cannot be denied to
the suit is not barred wisdom had thought it fit not to the workman
1996 SC prescribe any period. The Courts merely on the
1351 by limitation, HC admittedly interpret the law and ground of delay.
do not make laws. Personal
agreed with itl. views of the judges presiding
over the court cannot be
The services of the stretched to authorize them to
interpret law in such a manner
appellant workman which would amount to
legislation intentionally left over
were terminated by by the legislature.
the respondent

management without

compliance of the

mandatory provisions
of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947. The

Labour court directed
restatement of the

workman. The Single

Judge of the HC held
that no relief to the

workman as filed a

case after a prolonged

delay, devision bench
also upheld it.