Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies burden of proof in specific performance cases, emphasizing defendant's conduct and failure to challenge agreement promptly.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that remand under Order 41 Rule 23A CPC requires evidence insufficiency or procedural lapse, not mere improper appreciation of evidence.
Bombay High Court holds that delay in filing interim applications may be condoned with costs, reinforcing procedural fairness and access to justice in writ proceedings.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that any person in possession claiming independent title may file objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC before dispossession, rejecting the notion that remedy exists only post-eviction.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that applications under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC require specific relevance to pleadings; mechanical orders without judicial reasoning are invalid.
Rajasthan High Court clarifies that courts may allow belated document production under Order VII Rule 14 CPC if it aids fair adjudication, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party.
The Kerala High Court holds that making an interim injunction absolute without affording hearing violates natural justice, setting a clear procedural standard for civil courts.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that appellate authorities must consider condonation of delay applications before rejecting appeals, reinforcing procedural fairness under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that plaintiffs seeking temporary injunctions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC need not disclose prior agreements not forming the basis of the suit.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that Section 152 CPC permits correction of clerical omissions where judgment clearly intends a finding but fails to reflect it in the decree.
The Kerala High Court dismisses a review petition for attempting to re-litigate costs imposed for filing frivolous Section 8 petitions, reinforcing procedural discipline in litigation.
Karnataka High Court clarifies that trial courts must judiciously exercise discretion under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC when allowing reopening of evidence, balancing fairness with finality.
Chhattisgarh High Court holds that amendment of plaint after evidence closure requires proof of due diligence; failure to record satisfaction renders order invalid.
Kerala High Court holds that oral agreements extending limitation period for specific performance can be considered at trial, overturning plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Punjab & Haryana High Court holds that plaintiffs in recovery suits may be granted two fresh opportunities to lead evidence despite prior delays, subject to cost deposit.