Code of Civil Procedure 1908 CPC

The Supreme Court in Deep Nursing Home v. Manmeet Singh Mattewal (2025 INSC 1094) reiterated that the judgment in a case cannot go beyond the pleadings.

In Charuvila Philipose Sundaran Pillai and Another v. P. N. Sivadasan and Others, the Kerala High Court has laid down important guidelines for the service of summons on defendants residing in foreign countries, clarifying the application of the Hague Service Convention in conjunction with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

A counterclaim is a powerful procedural tool for a defendant. While it should ideally be filed along with the written statement, the Supreme Court has clarified that courts have the discretion to accept it at a later stage, generally before issues are framed, to ensure all related disputes are adjudicated efficiently.

The Supreme Court, in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu And Anr [AIR 2002 SC 3369], affirmed the established principle that an amendment to a plaint or written statement is deemed to have been part of the pleading since its inception.

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].

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.