#Civil Procedure

The court ruled that Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act permits full fee refunds only when disputes are referred under Section 89 CPC, not for private out-of-court settlements after evidence has been recorded. Section 69 overrides Section 69-A once trial commences, denying refunds to plaintiffs who settle privately mid-trial. This clarifies the scope of fee refunds and impacts litigants opting for private compromise after evidence stage.

Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses writ petition challenging Rent Control Tribunal's refusal to condone delay in filing appeal, holding apprehension of arrest does not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 Limitation Act when party had ample opportunity to participate.

Delhi HC condones 67-day delay in chamber appeal, sets aside order closing mortgagee bank's right to lead evidence, directs Joint Registrar to grant fresh opportunity.

The Madras High Court invoked Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction to strike off a civil suit where the plaintiff suppressed prior Supreme Court eviction decrees and claimed title through a tenant who fabricated settlement and sale deeds in breach of court undertakings. The ruling affirms that supervisory power extends to aborting proceedings founded on fraud and deliberate concealment of adverse judicial orders.

Delhi HC holds that a plaintiff cannot claim 'subsequent discovery' of records always in its custody by deferring search, defeating 'reasonable cause' under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC. This ruling impacts trademark suits, where filing similar documents with the plaint and multiple tranches of disclosure can be deemed unreasonable.

The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹15 lakh pre-judgment security order, ruling that mere apprehension of asset disposal, a defendant's residence outside the jurisdiction, and evasive denials do not satisfy the stringent requirement under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC to prove a concrete intent to defeat decree execution. The decision raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs seeking attachment before judgment in commercial suits.

The Madras High Court held that setting aside an ex-parte order in a summary suit does not dispense with Order XXXVII CPC's mandatory leave-to-defend procedure. The defendant must still seek leave to defend; a written statement cannot be filed as of right. The trial court's acceptance of the written statement without this step was set aside, upholding the summary suit's expedited recovery framework.

The High Court ruled that a trial court's refusal to grant police aid for enforcing an interim injunction is revisable under Article 227 where the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed during the suit. It directed police assistance to restore possession, holding that interim orders must be effectively enforced to prevent self-help. This strengthens protection for plaintiffs facing forceful dispossession pending litigation.

The Madras HC set aside a trial court order returning an unnumbered plaint in an adverse possession suit against a TN Land Encroachment Act notice, holding courts must first number the plaint and hear the plaintiff on maintainability under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - a jurisdictional bar cannot justify bypassing this mandatory procedure.

Madras HC holds defendants lack locus to challenge GPA execution under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as strangers to the instrument. Foreign notary authentication upheld under Section 14 Notaries Act without reciprocity; GPA not compulsorily attestable. Date ambiguity resolved via notary seal evidence.

The Delhi High Court held that a summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC cannot be entertained after issues are framed, requiring the suit to go to trial for evidence appreciation. This clarifies that Order XIII-A does not permit premature disposal once the suit reaches the issue-framing stage.

The Delhi HC held that vague counsel negligence claims do not amount to 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte judgment, stressing that litigants must stay vigilant and act promptly or lose chance to challenge judgment.

A belated amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed if due diligence is shown and it does not fundamentally alter the suit, the Supreme Court held. It vacated the trial and Orissa High Court orders, imposed costs, but left property question open.

The Court held that withdrawing a revision as 'not pressed' after an adverse order triggers CPC Order XXIII Rule 1’s rule of public policy, barring a fresh writ on the same cause. This stops litigants from evading adverse orders by abandoning revision.

The Allahabad HC ruled that the death of one joint decree-holder does not nullify execution proceedings; the surviving holder may proceed under Order XXI Rule 15 CPC. This clarifies that execution can continue without amending the decree to remove the deceased’s name, affecting property-dispute litigants.