IMPORTANT CASE LAWS FOR DJS MAINS CPC BY DEVASHISH PANDEY

Sr. CASE LAW AND FINDING REMARKS

No

1. Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand, CA 1760 OF

2022
Dated: 10 March 2022
Delivered by: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
Subject: Scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; Whether
Appellate Court Can Pronounce Judgment Without
Considering Additional Evidence Sought to Be Adduced
Held: The bench explained the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of
CPC as follows:
General principle is that the appellate court should not travel
outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any
evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule
27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence
in exceptional circumstances
One of the circumstances in which the production of additional
evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court
is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court
requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to
pronouncement judgment or for any other substantial cause
of like nature. Also that the evidence has a direct and
important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest
of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed
to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed.
Regarding the Rejection of Plaint Order VII Rule 11
2 Biswanath Banik vs Sulanga Bose, CA 1848 OF 2022
Dated: 14 March 2022
Delivered by: MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
Subject: Order VII Rule 11 CPC
Held: While considering an application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint
averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few
lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the
plaint - Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that
 the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can
be rejected - The plaint cannot be rejected partially.
3 Sree Surya Developers and Promoters vs N. Sailesh
Prasad, CA 439 OF 2022,
Dated: 9 Feb 2022
Delivered by: Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna
Subject: Rejection of plaint when suit is filed challenging
Consent Decree
Held: The court held that the application for rejection of
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed against a
suit (plaint) instituted to challenge the Compromise Decree
passed under Order XXIII Rule 3A. It was further held that a
party to a consent decree based on a compromise cannot
challenge such decree by the separate suit on the ground that
the decree was not lawful i.e., it was void or voidable rather
the party has to approach the same court, which recorded the
compromise
4 Capital Land Builders Pvt Ltd and Ors vs Shiva Kumar
Jindad and Ors, CM(M) 69/2022
Dated: 19 Jan 2022
Delivered by: Justice Prateek Jalan
Subject: Order VII Rule 11 CPC
Held: The Delhi High Court has held that sufficiency of
evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs is required to be
considered during trial and not while deciding an application
for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. it
is well settled that, for the purposes of rejection of the plaint
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is duty bound
to consider the contents of the plaint, and not to examine the
sufficiency of the evidence or the defence put forth by the
defendant."
5 Rajendra Bajoria Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan, CA 5819-
-5822 OF 2021
Dated: 21 September 2021
Delivered by: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai
Subject: Order VII Rule 11 CPC
Held: that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil
action is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered
to. However, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the duty is cast
 upon the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a
cause of action, by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint,
read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or
whether the suit is barred by any law. This Court has held that
the underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that
when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court
would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the
proceedings. It has been held that in such a case, it will be
necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further
judicial time is not wasted. (Para 20)
6 Sumer Singh Salkan v. Vikram Singh Mann & Ors., CM
(M) 37/2019
Dated: 10th January, 2022
Delivered by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Subject: Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Principles while deciding
to delete the parties.
Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC empowers the Court to delete
or add parties to the suit. The principles held regarding this are
as follows:
The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an
application made by the parties or otherwise, direct
impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been
joined as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the
Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of
the issues involved in the suit.

1. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined

as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective
decree cannot be passed by the Court.

2. A proper party is a person whose presence would

enable the Court to completely, effectively and
properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though
he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a
decree is to be made.

3. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary

party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order
his impleadment against the wishes of the Plaintiff.
 4. - Plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the
persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot
be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not
seek any relief.

These principles were earlier held in the following two cases:

Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Tosh
Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 384;
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency
Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2010) 7
SCC 417
7 Shivnarayan by LRs. versus Maniklal by LRs. & ors,
Supreme Court
Dated: February 06, 2019
Delivered by: Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph
Subject: Sec 17 CPC
Held: Suit in respect of different properties can be filed in any
of the courts having jurisdiction if cause of action is the same.
The Supreme Court has held that the word 'property' in Section
17 of the Code of Civil Procedure can include more than one
property. Therefore, the application of Section 17 CPC is not
restricted to situations where portions of a single property fall
within different jurisdictions; rather, it will apply to even those
cases where the suit is concerning different properties situated
in different jurisdictions. However, there is a rider that the suit
in respect of the properties must be arising out of same cause
of action.
The word "portion of the property" occurring in Section 17
has to be understood in context of more than one property also,
meaning thereby one property out of a lot of several properties
can be treated as portion of the property as occurring in Section
17.

8 Tharvinder singh & ors. V. Viresh chopra & anr, 2022

LiveLaw (Del) 93, Delhi High Court
Dated: 6 Feb 2022
Delivered By: Justice Pratibha M Singh
Held: it is the settled position in law that once an application
for amendment is allowed, in terms of the provisions of Order
VI Rule 18 CPC, the plaint has to be amended. If the amended
 plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot
be amended thereafter, as also confirmed by the Supreme
Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC
1," the Court said.

9 H.S. Sahni v. Mukul Singhal & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Del)

127
Delhi High Court
Dated: 17th January, 2022.
Delivered by: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Asha Menon
Subject: Res Subjudice and Section 21 CPC
Held: Where there was "identity of matter" in both the suits
i.e., the whole of the subject matter in both the proceedings
were identical, even if further reliefs were claimed in the
subsequent suit, it would be immaterial and the second suit
would necessarily have to be stayed. Court relied on the apex
court decision in Aspi Jal & Anr. Vs. Khushroo Rustom
Dadyburjor, in the said case, the Supreme Court has
reiterated that the negative expression in Section 10 C.P.C.
makes the provision mandatory. The Court in which the
subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from proceeding
with the trial of that suit.

10 Dokala Hari Babu V. Kotra Appa Rao & Anr.| Special

Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4382/2022
Dated: