2022 SCC Vol. 8 Part 5
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 23 R. 3 — Consent order: All the parties to the consent terms are
civil procedure code
Limitation can be a preliminary issue under Or. 14, R. 2(2)(b) CPC if the question can be decided on admitted facts: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: Principal question before the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar*, JJ., for contemplation was whether the
Delhi High Court| Negligence of counsel not a reasonable ground within Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC; Facts of the case must disclose ‘urgency’ to avail benefit under Or. XI R. 1(4) CPC
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by the petitioner challenging dismissal order in relation to an application filed seeking
Court’s power under Section 9 A&C Act, 1996 wider than CPC; Technicalities of CPC cannot prevent it from securing the ends of justice: SC
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., contemplated the scope of Section 9 of Arbitration
2022 SCC Vol. 8 Part 3
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11(d) and Or. 14 R. 2: Limitation as a ground for rejecting
2022 SCC Vol. 8 Part 2
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96, Or. 41 Rr. 31 and 33: Principles summarised regarding powers and duty of
2022 SCC Vol. 8 Part 1
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 8, 11, 7, 2(1)(h), 16 and 45 — Non-signatory or non-party to arbitration
Explained| Can an independent counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC having nothing to do with the plaintiffs be allowed?
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia*, JJ has held that a counter claim under
2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 2
Army Act, 1950 — Ss. 125, 126, 69, 3(ii) and 70 — Criminal trial — Concurrent jurisdiction of court martial
Punjab and Haryana High Court | Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, 1908 does not affect rights of parties; No revision available
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Alka Sarin, J., dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside
Possession of joint land by one co-owner valid in absence of proof showing disagreement between other co-owners; Punjab & Haryana High Court reiterates
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., while dealing with a revision petition for setting aside the order passed by
Madhya Pradesh High Court | Review of an order passed in a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 9 held not maintainable; Petition dismissed
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Vishal Mishra, J. dismissed a second review petition holding that
Delhi High Court upholds Trial Court ruling in application filed under O. XIII A CPC for default in payment of rent by tenant due to COVID
Delhi High Court: In a case where the Trial Court directed the tenants ‘appellants herein' to pay the defaults in
Rajasthan High Court| Trial Court required to prima-facie ascertain the relevancy of the proposed witnesses while deciding application under Order XVI R 1 and 2 CPC
Rajasthan High Court: Dinesh Mehta, J. considered the stamp vendor and Sub Registrar as relevant witnesses in a case where
Punjab and Haryana High Court dismisses review application for lack of any error found apparent on the face of record; cannot be disguised as appeal for re- hearing
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Fateh Deep Singh, J., dismissed a review application on the ground that no mistake or error was
A suit cannot be summarily decreed until the claim stands duly proved; Mad HC analyses Rules of Evidence Vis a Vis Order XIII A CPC
Madras High Court: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, J. remarked that a suit cannot be summarily decreed at the instance of a plaintiff unless
Raj HC | Objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction shall be taken at the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity in accordance with S. 21 CPC
Rajasthan High Court: Anoop Kumar Dhand J. allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order dated 17-08-2021 passed by the Court of
HP HC | Power under Or. 18 R. 17 CPC cannot be invoked to fill up omission in the evidence already led by a witness
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 17-07-2017. The facts of the case
Ori HC | Adverse possession is a right which comes into play not just because someone loses his right to reclaim the property out of continuous and wilful neglect but also on account of possessor’s positive intent to dispossess-one
Orissa High Court: D. Dash J. dismissed the second appeal being devoid of merits. The Appellant filed the instant appeal under Section