Tag: Civildigest

Jurisdiction of the Courts and res judicata

Courts to try all civil suits unless barred —The Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Again A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.

Stay of the suit —No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending before competent Jurisdiction.

Res judicata —No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Bar to further suit —Where a plaintiff is precluded by rules from instituting a further suit in respect of any particular cause of action, he shall not be entitled to institute a suit in respect of such cause of action in any Court to which this Code applies.

Foreign Decree- A foreign judgment by competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title

Whether a witness examined by Affidavit can be recalled for further evidence of facts not mentioned in Affidavit.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 18, Rule 17—Recall and examination of witness—Power to recall any witness under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of parties to suit—Such power is to be invoked not to fill up lacunae in evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during course of his examination—If evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on ultimate decision of suit, it is always within discretion of Trial Court to permit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permission to defendants to cross-examine witness thereafter. Error! No text of specified style in document. vs. Error! No text of specified style in document.

Shamsher Singh Vs Rajinder Prashad and others-03/08/1973

COURT FEES-The plaintiff had sued for a twofold declaration: (i) that the property described in the plaint was a waqf, and (ii) that certain alienations thereof by the mutwali and his brother were null and void and were ineffectual against the waqf property. It was held that the second part of the declaration was tantamount to the setting aside or cancellation of the alienations and therefore the relief claimed could not be treated as a purely declaratory one and inasmuch as it could not be said to follow directly from the declaration sought for in the first part of the relief, the relief claimed in the case could be treated as a declaration with a “consequential relief.

Whether pleadings can be directed to be amended after hearing of a case begins?

Vidyabai & Ors. Versus Padmalatha & Anr.-However, proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court’s jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.

Whether a stranger can be permitted to file a civil appeal in any proceedings?


Section 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from decree in appeal respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. However, it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the Court that he falls with the category of aggrieved persons.

Hari Narain Vs Badri Das-04/03/1963


It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading.

Dalip Singh Versus State of U.P. and ORS -03/12/2009

False statement on oath-it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice.

Karam Kapahi and Ors Vs Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Another: 07/04/2010

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 12, Rule 6—Judgment on admission—Termination of lease—Non-payment of rent—Prayer for judgment on admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC-Where controversy is between parties on an admission of non-payment of rent, judgment can be rendered on admission by Court—Club seeks to approbate and reprobate—Club was very negligent in pursuing its case—Doctrine of election squarely applies as Club has advanced inconsistent pleas—Club not entitled to any discretionary remedy—

Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs Tata Steel Ltd-05/07/2011

JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION-It is true that a judgment can be given on an “admission” contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the Defendant, by way of an appeal on merits.

Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vs Purushottam & Ors-03/04/2020


Hindu Undivided Family-It is held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it is also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because one member of the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint family.

Kale and others VS Deputy Director of Consolidation and others- 21/01/1976

FAMILY SETTLEMENT-the family settlement arrived at by the parties was oral, and the petition filed by them on August 7, 1956 before the Assistant Commissioner was merely an information of an already completed oral transaction. In other words, the petition was only an intimation to the Revenue court or authority that the matters in dispute between the parties had been settled amicably between the members of the family, and no longer required determination and that the mutation be effected in accordance with that antecedent family settlement. Since the petition did not itself create or declare any rights in immovable property of the value of Rupees 100 or upwards, it was not hit by Sec. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, and as such was not compulsorily registrable.