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.
In L. Ponnayal @ Lakshmi v. Karuppannan (Dead) Thr. L.R. Sengoda Gounder & Anr. [AIR ONLINE 2018 SC 191], the Supreme Court of India held that civil suits are decided on the basis of pleadings and the issues framed thereon, and the parties to the suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond their pleadings.
Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 (CPC) mandates a two-month written notice before filing a suit against the Government or a public officer for actions taken in their official capacity. The mandatory two-month waiting period is excluded from the calculation of the limitation period.
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).
The Supreme Court, in State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School [2026: INSC:148], has reiterated that the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right; rather, it remains entirely within the discretion of the Court.
The Supreme Court, in Hemalatha (D) By Lrs vs Tukaram(D) By Lrs, observed that a registered sale deed carries a greater presumption of validity and genuineness, and therefore cannot be lightly declared as 'sham' to oppose the sale transaction.
In the landmark case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh [2013 4 KLT 632], a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India underscored that the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) is mandatory whenever information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
A person who approaches the court with "unclean hands" by suppressing material facts is not entitled to obtain any relief, observed the Kerala High Court in Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnan Kutty [2025: KER:72453].
In Annamalai v. Vasanthi and Others [2025 INSC 1267], the Supreme Court clarified the remedies available for a document that is void ab initio (void from the beginning).