civil procedure code
2022 SCC Vol. 8 Part 5
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 23 R. 3 — Consent order: All the parties to the consent terms are
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
