Code of Civil Procedure 1908 CPC

In civil cases, litigants or lawyers often conflate pleadings with counter affidavits, even though under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), these two documents are legally distinct ones.

In Hari Dutta Sharma v. State of UP [2026: INSC: 1040], the Supreme Court held that a financier's right to repossess a hypothecated vehicle cannot be exercised through force, deceit, or in violation of the loan agreement's terms. Instead, the recovery of loans and seizure of vehicles must be carried out through proper legal means.

An advocate who conducted a civil suit in the trial court can validly sign and file a memorandum of appeal without obtaining the physical signature of the client, provided that the trial advocate continues to represent the client at the appellate stage under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. However, as a matter of prudence, it is always advisable to obtain the client’s signature to prevent unexpected defects or objections from the court’s registry.

In Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr [AIR 2006 SC 269], the Supreme Court observed that defective Vakalatnamas are routinely filed in courts and directed advocates to prevent the filing of such defective documents.

To legally evict a tenant, who has secured a temporary injunction against a road-widening project, the landlord must follow a valid legal process to dismiss the injunction, evict the tenant and recover the property. A landlord cannot use force; they must file an application to vacate the injunction and initiate a formal eviction proceeding in tune with the state's compulsory acquisition requirement.

In Madathil Pakruti v. T.P. Kunjanandan [2025: KER:80993], the Kerala High Court has held that where a suit challenges multiple documents relating to the same property, a declaratory relief against a subsequent document — whose fate depends entirely on the outcome of the challenge to an earlier document — is merely ancillary. The Court fee in such case need be computed only on the principal relief, in terms of the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.

When a plaintiff files a civil suit, the defendant must get a copy of the plaint and all documents that the plaintiff has filed along with it, without which, a defendant cannot set up her defence.

A plaintiff who intentionally omits or relinquishes a part of their claim is permanently barred from filing a subsequent suit to recover that claim, as per Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Supreme Court held this in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited [2025 INSC 73].

It is settled law that once it is found that the power exists, the exercise of power under a wrong provision will not render the order illegal or invalid.

The Supreme Court, in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat & Others [(2012) 1 KLT 383], observed that in the case of an inter-caste marriage, or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal person, there may be a presumption that the child belongs to the caste of the father.