Civil law

In Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) through LRs & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor, the Supreme Court held that additional evidence inconsistent with the original pleadings cannot be admitted at the appellate stage under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

In a significant judgment, Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra and others, the Supreme Court considered whether the organization, Operation ASHA, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, met the requirements of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to have a suit filed against it under that provision.

Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a suit abates (terminates) upon the death of a plaintiff or defendant if the cause of action does not survive. Conversely, if the cause of action survives, the legal representatives of the deceased may be substituted to continue the proceedings, as provided under Order XXII, Rules 2 to 4 of the CPC.

In the absence of pleadings submitted at the appropriate stage within the stipulated time, any amount of evidence submitted later, will not be taken into consideration by the court, says the Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Biraji @ Brijraji & Another. v. Surya Pratap & Others [AIR Online 2020 SC 806].

As per Section 17 (g) of the Registration Act, 1908, a Power of Attorney, which creates any power or right of management, administration, development, transfer or any other transaction relating to immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards requires compulsory registration.

The Supreme Court (SC), in Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh [2025 INSC 628], held that under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), only the court—not the parties—has the power to recall a witness.

The Para 16 of the SC judgement in Bachhaj Nahar v Nilima Mandal & Others [AIR 2009 SC 1103] states that it is fundamental that in a civil suit, relief to be granted can be only with reference to the prayers made in the pleadings and therefore, it would be hazardous to hold that in a civil suit whatever be the relief that is prayed, the court can on examination of facts grant any relief as it thinks fit.

Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint in duplicate to the court which has jurisdiction to try the suit and is the lowest in grade competent to try it. The detailed rules, governing the presentation of a plaint, are included in Order VI and VII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1973 (CPC).

In Ashok Kumar Kalra v Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri [2019 (4) KLT 790], the Supreme Court (SC) held that while a counterclaim need not always be filed along with the written statement, it must not be entertained once the suit has substantially progressed.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held, in Chandiram Anandram Hemnani v Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal [2025:BHC-AUG:15227], that elderly parents cannot be compelled to let son & daughter-In-law stay in their house against their wishes.

A suit for cancellation of an instrument can only be filed by a person who was a party in the execution of that instrument. A stranger to an instrument cannot sue for cancellation, under The Specific Relief Act, 1973.

The court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder, for attachment to be sold, if the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small. This is not a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the court, says the Supreme Court (SC), in Ambati Narasayya v M. Subba Rao & Another [1990 AIR 119].