{"id":326100,"date":"2024-07-09T10:00:11","date_gmt":"2024-07-09T04:30:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=326100"},"modified":"2024-07-10T17:59:01","modified_gmt":"2024-07-10T12:29:01","slug":"sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/","title":{"rendered":"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Sikkim High Court:<\/span> The defendant (Defendant 1”) had made an application under Order XIV, Rule 2 (“Or.14, R.2”), read with Section 151<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> (“CPC”), before the Senior Civil Judge, Gangtok (“Trial Court”), for deciding the maintainability of their suit as a preliminary issue in law, vis-a-vis the admissions of the plaintiff regarding their knowledge of illegal transfer of suit property in the name of Defendant 1. The Trial Court order had decided against Defendant 1, which they challenged before the instant Court.<\/p>\n

The single-Judge Bench of Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.*<\/span>, perused the aforementioned provisions of the CPC and pointed out that the instant suit involved a mixed question of law and facts, and the court is not conferred with any jurisdiction under Or. 14 R. 2<\/a> of CPC<\/a> to decide such a question, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself. Therefore, the Court held that question of maintainability of suit could not have been determined as preliminary issue due to the discrepancy in facts.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs through the Right to Information Act, had learnt firsthand that their ancestral property, which is the suit land in dispute, had been illegally transferred to and recorded under the name of Defendant 1. The same was admitted by the plaintiff through their cross-examination. The Trial Court after taking note of the precedents relied upon by the parties, opined that the issue of limitation, (as sought by Defendant 1) can be taken up as a preliminary issue. Having thus examined the same, the Trial Court decided the issue in favour of the plaintiffs, thereby prompting Defendant 1 to file the instant petition.<\/p>\n

Court’s analysis and decision<\/p>\n

The Court noted the case of Sukhbiri Devi<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1322<\/a>, that was relied on by the Trial Court, wherein the Supreme Court, had held that the issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue under Or. 14 R. 2<\/a> of the CPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sukhbiri Devi (supra)<\/span> relied its decision on Nusli Neville Wadia<\/span> v. Ivory Properties<\/span>, (2020) 6 SCC 557<\/a>, wherein, the Supreme Court had held, “if a question of limitation can be decided based on admitted facts, it can be decided as a preliminary issue under Or. 14, R. 2(2)(b). However, once the facts about limitation are disputed, the issue of limitation cannot be made a preliminary issue. Further, if the question of jurisdiction also depends on the disputed facts, it can also not be decided as a preliminary issue.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

The Court noted that in the instant case the issue of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law and that the application under Or. 14 Rule 2<\/a> of the CPC<\/a> sought to rely upon a portion of one part of the cross-examination to seek the examination of the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue.<\/p>\n

The Court perused the provisions of Or. 14 R. 2<\/a> CPC<\/a>, and highlighted that where issues of both fact and law arise in a suit, the Court may try the issue priorly, if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court; or to the bar of suit under any law in force.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that Or. 14, R.2 does not confer any jurisdiction on the court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself.<\/p>\n

The Court held with absolute certainty that the question of maintainability of suit could not have been determined as preliminary issue, as determined by the Trial Court, in the light of the discrepancy as to the facts, and therefore such determination was erroneous, even if it was at the instance of Defendant 1.<\/p>\n

Hence, the Court set aside the impugned order, and further held that the question of maintainability of suit in law may be considered with other issues framed and determined at the conclusion of the trial.<\/p>\n

[Phigu Tshering Bhutia v. Karma Samten Bhutia, 2024 SCC OnLine Sikk 50<\/a>, decided on 02-07-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by: Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the petitioner:<\/span> Laxmi Chakraborty, Dewen Sharma Luitel, Bhaichung Bhutia, Advocates<\/p>\n

For the respondents:<\/span> Jorgay Namka, Senior Advocate, Rinchen Ongmu Bhutia, Avinash Dewan, Lahang Limboo, Advocates; S.K. Chhettri, Government Advocate<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court decided under the aegis of Or.14, R.2 of the CPC that where a question of law is dependent on the determination of a question of fact, then such question of fact cannot be decided as a preliminary issue by the Trial Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":320032,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[51481,44986,70732,3655,47203,70731,70733,30788],"class_list":["post-326100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-51481","tag-code-of-civil-procedure","tag-discrepancy-of-facts","tag-limitation","tag-mixed-question-of-law-and-fact","tag-or-14-r-2-cpc","tag-preliminary-issue","tag-sikkim-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nOr. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law: Sikkim HC<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-07-09T04:30:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-07-10T12:29:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/\",\"name\":\"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law: Sikkim HC\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-07-09T04:30:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-10T12:29:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Sikkim High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law: Sikkim HC","description":"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC","og_description":"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-07-09T04:30:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-07-10T12:29:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/","name":"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law: Sikkim HC","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-07-09T04:30:11+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-10T12:29:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Sikkim High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/09\/sikkim-hc-cpc-preliminary-issue-mixed-question-of-law-and-facts-or-14-r-2-discrepancy-facts\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":329489,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/28\/o-vi-r-17-does-not-limit-application-for-amendment-pleadings-at-any-stage-of-proceedings-sikkim-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":326100,"position":0},"title":"\u2018O. VI R. 17 does not limit amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings, if it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy\u2019: Sikkim HC","author":"Editor","date":"August 28, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The amendments were imperative for the proper and effective adjudication of the dispute; refusal to allow the amendment application would have caused injustice or resulted in multiple litigations; and the amendments did not constitutionally or fundamentally change the nature of the case.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Sikkim High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":252467,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/09\/sikk-hc-application-allowed-under-or-vi-r-17-cpc-1908-seeking-amendment-to-the-plaint-erroneous-court-explains\/","url_meta":{"origin":326100,"position":1},"title":"Sikk HC | Application allowed under Or. VI R. 17 CPC, 1908, seeking amendment to the plaint erroneous; Court explains \u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"August 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Sikkim High Court: Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ., allowed a petition which was filed aggrieved by the order allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment to the plaint. Counsel for the petition, Mr Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Mr Souri Ghosal and Mr\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":255954,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/22\/second-appeal-is-maintainable-if-only-the-case-involves-a-substantial-question-of-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":326100,"position":2},"title":"Sikk HC | Second appeal is maintainable if only the case involves a substantial question of law; Court dismisses appeal","author":"Editor","date":"October 22, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J., dismissed the second appeal explaining that the second appeal is maintainable before the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":203048,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/04\/powers-under-order-viii-rule-9-cpc-to-be-exercised-by-the-courts-only-in-cases-of-set-off-counter-claim\/","url_meta":{"origin":326100,"position":3},"title":"Powers under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to be exercised by the courts only in cases of set off\/counter claim","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 4, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, J., partly allowed a writ petition filed against an order passed by the trial court whereby petitioner\u2019s application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC had been rejected by the trial court. The main issue that arose before the Court was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":275417,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/limitation-can-be-a-preliminary-issue-under-or-14-r-22b-cpc-if-the-question-can-be-decided-on-admitted-facts-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":326100,"position":4},"title":"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","author":"Editor","date":"October 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Supreme Court: Principal question before the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar*, JJ., for contemplation was whether the issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short \u2018CPC\u2019). The Supreme Court while\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286916,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/15\/winds-of-change-in-commercial-disputes-via-summary-judgments-%e2%80%95-the-why-the-how-and-the-way-forward\/","url_meta":{"origin":326100,"position":5},"title":"Winds of Change in Commercial Disputes via Summary Judgments \u2015 The Why, the How and the Way Forward","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ishita Chandra\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=326100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326100\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/320032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=326100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=326100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=326100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}