Civil Cases & Proceedures

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.

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.