Important Judgment on Civil Procedure Code 1908

Important Judgment on Civil Procedure Code 1908

Important Judgment on Civil Procedure Code 1908

  • By applying Civil Procedure Code 151 or Cr.P.C 482 order taken by fraud or suppressing material fact can be recalled at any stage of litigation but once a superior court accepts an appeal, lower courts cannot recall or proceed with the litigation. V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors– Supreme Court-Date of decision-07 March 2007-Equivalent citations: (2007) 4 SCC 211.
  • Apex Court explains the procedure of Alternative Dispute Resolution i.e. Arbitration, judicial settlement, Lok Adalat, and Mediation. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co– Supreme Court- Date of decision-26 July 2010-Equivalent citations: 2010) 8 SCC 24.
  • If court has no Jurisdictions, it cannot go into the merits of case and decide the same. Bhadrayu C Vachharajani VS Saurashtra University– Gujarat HC- Date of decision-29 November 2013-Equivalent citations: GHJ-2014-35-385.
  • No relief if litigant lies or supress material fact and came before the court with unclean hands. Dalip Singh vs. State Of U.P. & Ors– Supreme Court- Date of decision-03 December 2009-Equivalent citations: (2010) 2 SCC 114.
  • Definition of Shared Household and Matrimonial Home held that Parents can expel their children. Neetu Mittal vs. Kanta Mittal– Delhi HC- Date of decision-30 September 2008-Equivalent citations: 2008 (106) DRJ 6223, 2008 (4) RCR (C) 630.
  • Court imposes fine for delaying tactics adopted by Lawyer. Rampyari & Ors. vs. Ms. Kamlesh– Delhi HC- Date of decision -09 March 2010- CM (M) No. 496/2009 & CM No. 7663/2009.
  • Filing false affidavits in court is an act of criminal contempt of Court. Rita Markandey vs. Surjit Singh Arora– Supreme Court- Date of decision-27 September 1996-Equivalent citations: (1996) 6 SCC 14.
  • Judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-exist in the eyes of law. P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath– Supreme Court- Date of decision-27 October 1993-Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 853, 1994 SCC (1) 1.
  • A person, who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him. Ramesh vs. MS. Cethar Ltd– Madras High Court- Date of decision-12 January 2016-Writ Appeal (MD) No.1122 of 2015 and M.P. (MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2015.
  • Husband lodged suit claiming damages on account of false prosecution after acquittal in 498A. Period of limitation is one year in a suit claiming damages on account of false prosecution and the period is calculated from the date when the false prosecution came to an end. Saritha Rao & Ors. vs. Y.Raghunath Rao & Anr– Delhi High Court- Date of decision-04-March 2010-Equivalent citations: 169 (2010) DLT 277.
  • Service of Summon, on whom burden of proof lies, court may presume existence of certain facts. Sweety Gupta Vs. Neety Gupta & Ors-Delhi High Court- Date of decision-25 October 2016- FAO (OS) 108/2016.
  • Right to Residence after Divorce to be decided based on Divorce Terms. P. Achala Anand Vs. S.Appi Reddy & Anr– Supreme Court- Date of decision-11 February 2005-Equivalent citations: (2005) 3 SCC 313.
  • Right to privacy is not an absolute right. Alika Khosla vs. Thomas Mathew & Anr. – Date of decision-Delhi High Court-20 December 2001-Equivalent citations: 2002 (62) DRJ 851.
  • Controversies can be adjudicated upon only in the main suit not in temporary injunction-Rajasthan High Court-Equivalent citations: AIR 95 RAJ 17, RLR 1988 (2) 871 and 97 (2) WLC 641.
  • Litigant should came before the court with clean hands, no relief to be given by any court if found unclean hands. Ramjas Foundation & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors– Supreme Court-Date of decision-09 November 2010-Equivalent citations: 2010(15) SCR 364, 2010(14) SCC 38, 2010(12) JT 134, 2010(11) SCALE 598.
  • Constructive Res-Judicata. State Of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nawab Hussain– Supreme Court- Date of decision- 4 April, 1977- Civil Appeal No. 2339 of 1968- Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1680, 1977 SCR (3) 428.
  • Right to obtain a writ must equally be a fundamental right when a petitioner presents the Daryao And Others vs. The State Of U. P. And Others- Date of decision- Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1457, 1962 SCR (1) 574.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgments are posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout’ from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contacts your advocate.

Also Read:-IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS ON SERVICE LAW

Feel free to Share this

Bhupendra Sharma

"Bhupendra Sharma is a practicing lawyer at Rajasthan High Court who completed his graduation from the University of Rajasthan. He has pursued his LLM from Acharya Nagarjuna University. He is also a degree holder in Master of Education and Master of Business Administration."