CPC Case Laws Flashcards
(53 cards)
Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954)
Crux: The Supreme Court held that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and can be challenged even in execution proceedings.
Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002)
In Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002), the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of substitution of legal heirs in a suit for specific performance of a contract. The case clarified that when a party to a suit dies, their legal representatives can continue the proceedings, as a suit does not abate on the death of a party. The court held that the right to specific performance is transferable to legal heirs, and the appeal or suit continues as if the deceased party were still alive. This case emphasizes that legal heirs can pursue or defend the rights involved in a specific performance suit after the death of the original party.
Balaji Dhunappa Jadhav v. Puranik D.K. (2007)
Crux: The court held that res judicata applies to the questions of fact and law decided in a previous suit between the same parties.
Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York (1974)
Crux: The case discussed whether orders are considered as decrees under Section 2(2) of CPC, highlighting the distinction between “decree” and “order.”
Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav (1966)
Crux: The Supreme Court held that an order returning a plaint to the proper court under Order 7 Rule 10 is appealable as a decree.
Prem Bakshi v. Dharam Dev (2002)
Crux: The case elaborated on Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, stating that a party has a right to apply for setting aside an ex-parte decree if proper notice was not served.
Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram (1960)
`
Crux: The court held that the limitation for executing a decree starts from the date of the decree, and the time taken for obtaining certified copies is to be excluded.
Deokabai v. Dadoo (1932)
Crux: The court held that if an appeal is withdrawn, it operates as if the appeal was never filed, and the decree of the lower court becomes final.
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005)
Crux: The Supreme Court upheld amendments to the CPC aimed at reducing delays and introducing case management to expedite civil cases.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant (1995)
Crux: The case clarified the scope of Section 9 of the CPC, affirming that civil courts have jurisdiction unless a statute bars their intervention.
Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain (1995)
Crux: This case laid down guidelines on the application of Order 41 Rule 27, which governs the production of additional evidence in appellate courts.
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (2000)
Crux: The Supreme Court held that Order 39 Rule 3A, requiring the disposal of interim injunction applications within 30 days, is mandatory but directory in nature.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994)
Crux: The court emphasized the concept of fraud and its impact on court orders. It was held that any decree or order obtained by fraud is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of the law.
Union of India v. Sri Sartaj Singh (2011)
Crux: The Supreme Court discussed the principles of Order 1 Rule 10, dealing with impleading or striking off parties in civil suits, emphasizing discretion to be exercised by the court.
Lachmeswar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri (1940)
Crux: The court explained the doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona, stating that certain causes of action, like personal claims, die with the person and do not survive to their heirs.
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982)
Crux: The court clarified that the statement made by a judge in court or its recorded judgment is to be accepted unless challenged for being fraudulently obtained.
Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade (1983)
Crux: The Supreme Court emphasized that while executing a decree, courts have the power to go beyond the decree only to ensure that substantial justice is done.
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)
Crux: The court discussed the aspect of personal laws within the scope of civil suits and emphasized the importance of a Uniform Civil Code for the nation.
Bimla Devi v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (2008)
Crux: The court ruled that the principles of Order 32A, which pertain to family law proceedings, require the court to try and settle disputes through conciliation.
Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh (1971)
Crux: The Supreme Court clarified that a preliminary decree is not a final adjudication of the suit, and the rights of the parties are still open for determination in a final decree.
Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal (1967)
Crux: This case discussed the powers of the court to pass more than one preliminary decree and that the rights of parties in certain kinds of suits could change between preliminary and final decrees.
Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (1964)
Crux: The court emphasized that the principles of res judicata must be applied to prevent multiplicity of litigation on the same matter between the same parties.
Workmen v. Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust (1978)
Crux: The case reiterated the distinction between public and private employers under CPC, particularly in labor disputes.
Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja (2004)
Crux: This case discussed the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act and the relationship between civil suits and arbitration proceedings.
