Civil Cases & Proceedures

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.

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].

The Supreme Court (SC) in Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust & Anr Versus U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Others [2025 INSC 791] enlists essential elements of a legal notice.

The High Court of Kerala in paragraph 19 of the judgement in Shajeev George v The Chief Registrar Of Births And Deaths states that the declaratory decrees can be made by a court only after being satisfied with sufficient proof available on record for declaration of the civil death.

In the issue whether the Principal District Court can modify arbitral awards under Section 34 & Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AC Act) the five member Constitutional Bench  in Gayatri Balasamy v M/S Isg Novasoft Technologies Limited [2025 INSC 605] decided that under the Sections 34 & 37, the Principal District Court has no power to modify the award.

A suit, which was dismissed for default, can be set aside and restored to file under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), on the basis of an application made by the Advocate on the strength of Vakalatnama executed by the plaintiff in his favour in the interest of justice, says the High Court of Kerala in Balakrishnan v Geetha N G.

A Power of Attorney Holder cannot depose for principal in respect of matters of which only principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is liable to be cross-examined, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. v Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors [AIR 2005 SC 439]. The SC reaffirms the above dictum in Rajesh Kumar v Anand Kumar [2024 INSC 426].