Search By Topic: Civil Procedural Law

404. (P&H HC) 04-11-2022

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Proof of Will – Suspicious circumstances – Burden to prove -- Mere proving of a Will does not establish the same to be valid in law, in case the same is surrounded by suspicious circumstances -- The beneficiary is not only required to discharge his burden to prove the Will; but is also to satisfy the conscious of the Court that there are no suspicious circumstances or if there are any, to explain them is also on the propounder of the Will -- It is only when such responsibility is discharged by the beneficiary, the Court can accept the Will to be genuine.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Suspicious circumstances -- It is settled proposition of law that mere exclusion or dis-heritance of a natural heir while executing a Will is not to be taken as a suspicious circumstance as the very purpose of execution of a Will is to divert from the line of natural succession -- However, it has also been settled and expounded upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that any unnatural, improbable or unfair disposition made in the Will has to be considered as a suspicious circumstance.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Suspicious circumstances -- Respondent happened to be the legally wedded wife of deceased, neither the testator has recorded the factum of his marriage with the respondent in the Will; nor even her name has been mentioned therein -- More than that, no provision has even been made for her maintenance particularly under the circumstances wherein it has been established/ proved on record that the relationship between the husband and wife remained amicable throughout – From cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, one can easily see through that the testator’s mind was not free at the time of making disposition of Will.

(Para 9-14)

406. (P&H HC) 01-11-2022

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 60(1)(i), Order 21 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(Para 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 55 Order 21 Rule 30  -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(Para 7)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 – Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(Para 10)

410. (P&H HC) 31-10-2022

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 116 -- Arrear of rent – Provisional assessment of rent – Disputing Landlord’s ownership – Provisional rent was tendered without reserving any right to dispute ownership of the landlord – At the time of assessment of provisional rent also, no dispute about the ownership was raised by the tenants – Besides, after attornment they/tenants are estopped from disputing ownership of the landlord.

(Para 7)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Order 14 Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 25 -- Additional issue – Disputing Landlord’ ownership -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord  -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Said orders have attained finality – No occasion for the tenants to agitate the issue again before High Court – It is an abuse of the process of law – Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- It cannot by any stretch of imagination, therefore, be said that the Controller has “omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact” --  Therefore, provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable – Held, tenants could not invoke by filing the application, beseeching the Appellate Authority to frame additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord and refer the same to the Rent Controller for recording evidence thereupon -- Nor could the tenant file the other application Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing of issues -- Revision dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

(Para 9-10)

414. (P&H HC) 28-10-2022

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23, Rule 1 -- Withdrawal of suit -- Fresh suit for partition – Necessity of permission to file fresh suit -- Even in the absence of permission to file a fresh suit, a co-owner has a right to file a suit for partition even if his first suit has been dismissed on the ground that he did not implead all the co-owners as parties to the suit – It is not a decision on merits of the case -- In such circumstances, the permission granted is superfluous/ unnecessary.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23, Rule 1 -- Withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh – Power of Appellate Court -- Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC enables the Court to permit the party to withdraw his suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action -- Sub Rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order XXIII CPC envisages two different reasons for permitting the plaintiff to file a fresh suit.

-- Under clause (a), the Court can grant permission if it is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason or some formal defects.

-- Under clause (b), permission can be granted if the Court comes to a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit based upon the subject matter of the original suit or part of the claim.

Such power can be exercised any time after the institution of the suit -- There is no provision that such application is only maintainable before the trial Court -- First Appellate Court is a Court of fact and is empowered to decide such an application, if filed.

(Para 7)

417. (P&H HC) 14-10-2022

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Multiple cause of action – Civil suit – Limitation -- Suit can be filed within three years from the accrual of the initial cause of action, however, any successive violation of rights after institution of the suit would not give fresh cause of action to file a suit -- If the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation would commence from the date when the right to sue first accrued.

(Para 13)

B. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 44 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Consolidation proceedings -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Consolidation Authorities allotted 15 kanal 5 marla land of lesser value to the defendant as per his entitlement in lieu of 7 kanal 12 marla of standard land during consolidation -- Plaintiff till date has not challenged the order of Consolidation Authorities -- In case, the plaintiff was aggrieved by any such order, he should have challenged it before the authorities empowered under the Consolidation Act, which admittedly was not done -- Jurisdiction of the Civil Court barred -- Civil Court cannot derive jurisdiction beyond the statute by merely giving it a colour for a suit of declaration.

(Para 15)

C. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34, 44 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Mutation – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Mutation is only entered to update the revenue records and it not being a document of title does not confer any right on any person whatsoever -- Correctness of mutation cannot be challenged by plaintiff in a civil suit.

(Para 16)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Maintainability of suit for simplicitor declaration -- If the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, he cannot file a simpliciter suit for declaration and injunction without claiming possession thereof.

(Para 20)

422. (SC) 28-09-2022

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 9 -- Necessary party -- Necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed by the Court -- if a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Cancellation of Fair Price Dealer – Subsequent allottee – Writ petition -- Necessary party -- Even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation -- Appellant had been selected by the Tehsil Level Selection Committee in its meeting and thereafter, he was appointed as Fair Price Dealer vide order of the Competent Authority, on a regular basis – Held, appellant was a necessary party to the proceedings before the High Court.

(Para 13-15)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Cancellation of Fair Price Dealer – Concealment of facts – High Court allowed the writ -- Respondent No. 9/ writ petitioner was very well aware that during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant was appointed as a Fair Price Dealer -- Respondent No.9 has not only suppressed the fact about the subsequent allotment of the fair price shop to the appellant but has also tried to mislead the High Court that the fair price shop of respondent No.9 was attached to another fair price shop holder -- Impugned order of the High Court quashed and set aside – Order cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence of respondent No. 9 and order dismissing the appeal of respondent No.9 affirmed.

(Para 16-22)

426. (SC) 22-09-2022

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal -- Substantial question of law -- Proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be, whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court -- If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or the question raised is palpably absurd, the question would not be a substantial question of law.

(Para 31)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal -- Substantial question of law -- Question of law -- To be ‘substantial’, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned -- To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first, a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case -- An entirely new point raised for the first time before the  High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter -- It depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.

(Para 32)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal -- Substantial question of law -- Question of law -- Principles relating to Section 100 of the CPC may be summarised:

(i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law.

(ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law.

(iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to "decision based on no evidence", it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.

(Para 33)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, 100 – First Appeal -- Regular Second Appeal -- Respondents in their Second Appeal before the High Court did not advert to any material evidence that had been ignored by the First Appellate Court -- Respondents also could not show that any wrong inference had been drawn by the First Appellate Court from proved facts by applying the law erroneously – Held, it cannot be said that the First Appellate Court acted on no evidence.

(Para 34)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal -- Substantial question of law -- Right of appeal is not automatic -- Right of appeal is conferred by statute -- When statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to Supreme Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court.

(Para 36)

427. (SC) 20-09-2022

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 17, Rule 1, 2 -- Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction by State – Examination of State witness -- Forest Range Officer PW-1 who had given his examination-in-chief was supposed to appear for cross-examination, he did not appear on the date -- There could have been many reasons for his non-appearance both genuine and ingenuine -- In a state machinery, it takes reasonable time to nominate and arrange for another officer to come and give evidence in court -- Trial Court ought to have given adequate opportunity to the State -- Time for producing a witness to prove the plaint averments as also other supporting material ought to have been extended in the interest of justice -- Matter remanded to the Trial Court for afresh decision after affording due opportunity of leading evidence.

(Para 17, 20)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Additional evidence in appeal -- State wanted to place on record documents relating to the survey conducted on the strength of the Order of the High Court dated 13.06.2012 passed in criminal petitions u/s 482 CrPC quashing the FIRs -- Exercise having been undertaken after the judgment of the Trial Court dated 08.03.2012 the survey report and the other material related to it ought to have been allowed by the High Court to be admitted as evidence as it was relevant for the proper adjudication for the issues arising in the suit, of course with the rider that the respondent would have a right of rebuttal -- High Court in erred in rejecting the IA -- Impugned judgment of the High Court and Trial Court set aside – Matter remanded to the Trial Court for afresh decision after affording due opportunity of leading evidence.

(Para 18, 19)

428. (P&H HC) 20-09-2022

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 102, 128 – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Rejection of plaint -- Question of law is whether in view of Section 102 read with Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies  Act, 1984, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred? – Prayer is to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to hand over the complete documents with a consequential relief of declaration that conveyance deed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 is illegal and liable to be set aside.

-- Though the trial Court allowed the application, however, the lower appellate Court recorded a finding that since in the civil suit, there is pleading of fraud with regard to execution of the conveyance deed, on the basis of certain documents, which were prepared by the defendants in collusion with each other, therefore, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction and the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

-- The lower appellate Court also recorded a finding that Section 102 read with Sections 128 & 130 of the Act deals with reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator and regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Courts, however, nothing is stated under Section 128 of the Act that jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be barred, if a suit is filed on the basis of fraud.

-- At the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is primarily to see the pleadings in the plaint or the documents attached with the plaint.

In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that conveyance deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.2 by playing fraud -- Therefore, question of law decided in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff -- No illegality or infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court.

(Para 2-8)

431. (SC) 14-09-2022

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9, 36 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 -- Securing the amount -- Attachment before judgment – Absence of averment -- Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act – Court exercising power u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

(Para 49)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 -- Securing the amount – Interim relief -- Attachment before judgment – Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act -- A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice.

(Para 50)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9, 37 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 -- Securing the amount by interim relief -- Essar House Private directed to deposit an amount of Rs.35.5 crores with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court or, in the alternative, to furnish bank guarantee of any nationalised bank for the entire amount along with interest thereon – Prima facie, the refundable security deposit is not being released to Arcellor on the purported ground of a convoluted series of internal arrangements between group companies for diversion of the security deposits towards liquidation of alleged dues of Essar Steel to third parties -- No infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment and order of the Division Bench -- Appeals dismissed.

(Para 2, 51)

437. (SC) 01-09-2022

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Order 2 Rule 2 -- Amendment of plaint -- Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview -- Plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(Para 70 (i))

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side -- This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(Para 70 (ii))

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Prayer for amendment is to be allowed:

(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and

(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided

(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,

(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(Para 70 (iii))

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless;

(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration,

(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,

(iii) he prayer for amendment is malafide, or

(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

(Para 70 (iv))

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of pleadings -- In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(Para 70(v))

F. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of pleadings --

-- Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

-- Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

-- Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.

-- Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

(Para 70 (vi-ix))

G. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint -- Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed -- Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

(Para 70 (x))

H. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint -- Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach -- The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment -- As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed -- Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed.

(Para 70 (xi))

439. (SC) 18-08-2022

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 -- Review – A review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.

(Para 13)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 -- Review – Error in judgment -- Error must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out.

(Para 16)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 -- Review – Reappreciation of evidence – Permissibility of -- It is settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter.

(Para 17)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 -- Review – Scope of -- Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment -- Power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court.

(Para 18)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 -- Review – Scope of -- Court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal -- A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record -- Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter -- A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence -- An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court.

(Para 26)

F. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 -- Review – “for any other sufficient reason” – Meaning of -- Said phrase has been explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule”.

(Para 26)

G. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – Second review application – Maintainability of -- Recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is impermissible -- Held, second set of review petitions were nothing short of an abuse of the process of the court and ought to have been rejected by the High Court as not maintainable, without having gone into the merits of the matter.

(Para 35, 36)

449. (SC) 11-07-2022

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 – Res-judicata -- General principle of res judicata u/s 11 of the Code contains rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit -- Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality -- Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff’s appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit.

(Para 31)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 – Res-judicata -- To succeed and establish a prayer for res judicata, the party taking the said prayer must place on record a copy of the pleadings and the judgments passed, including the appellate judgment which has attained finality.

(Para 32)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2 – Constructive res-judicata -- Second appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed, giving liberty to the respondent to file a fresh suit with a prayer of declaration of title/endowment in respect of the suit jewellery -- Liberty granted was not challenged by the appellant -- Right to file a fresh suit to the Temple, therefore, should not be denied -- Bar of constructive res judicata/ Order II Rule 2 of the Code is not attracted.

(Para 32)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2 – Constructive res-judicata – Pleading, evidence and judgment/ decree of previous suit -- Party claiming and raising the plea of constructive res judicata/Order II Rule 2 of the Code must place on record in evidence the pleadings of the previous suit and establish the identity of the cause of actions, which cannot be established in the absence of record of judgment and decree which is pleaded to operate as estoppel.

(Para 33)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2 – Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (22 of 1959), Section 29(d), 108, 116(2)(xii) -- Decree of injunction – Constructive res-judicata -- High Court, in the impugned order directed the appellant to hand over the keys to the Joint Commissioner, who would perform the necessary responsibility of handing over the jewels during the Adipooram festival – Held, decree or direction is beyond what was sought by the respondent/ Temple in the plaint – Clarified and passed the decree restraining the appellant from interfering in any manner with the right of the Temple authorities to take out the suit jewellery from the Kudavarai whenever the occasion demands – In case the appellant fails to honour the commitment made and followed, that is, to open the doors of the Kudavarai and the safe to take out the suit jewellery whenever required by the Temple, it will be open to the respondent to take steps and initiate proceedings under the 1959 Act or by way of a civil suit as permitted in law – In which event the authorities/court would consider passing an order directing the appellant to hand over the keys of the door of the Kudavarai and the iron safe; as any failure to abide by the convention and ‘the charge’, which forms the basis of this order, would be a fresh or recurring cause of action, and the plea of limitation or Order II Rule 2 of the Code would not apply.

(Para 36-38)