#Civil Procedure Code

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.

The Calcutta HC held Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 inapplicable to partition suits where co-sharers have unity of possession, overturning the lower court’s order and clarifying that such suits must be decided on merits in partition proceeding.

SC barred a specific performance suit on an oral land sale agreement, holding no contract and the claim omitted in a prior suit without leave. Order II Rule 2 CPC requires leave to add omitted relief, affecting oral property litigants.

The Calcutta HC ruled that a separate suit to set aside a consent decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is not maintainable; only the court that recorded the decree can decide its validity. This bars parallel litigation and upholds the sanctity of settlement agreements.

Bombay High Court clarifies that caretaker agreements were licenses, not leases, and confirms its power under Order XLI Rule 33 in Article 227 petitions, directing mesne profit enquiry for long-term occupation.

An oral, temporary settlement among co-owners does not meet the legal definition of a partition, so the Delhi High Court allowed a fresh partition suit despite earlier compromise orders. The decision confirms informal compromises cannot bar new partition actions under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, affecting joint-family property litigants.

The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed that a partition effected in 1970 and the self-acquired nature of Schedule C property barred a subsequent partition suit, reinforcing that partition cannot be presumed and self-acquired assets remain outside the joint family estate.

A corporate defendant successfully invoked the Section 35 bona-fide use defence to retain a family name in its trademark, prompting the Bombay High Court to modify the earlier interim injunction. The ruling clarifies that companies may lawfully use surnames when use is genuine, affecting future trademark litigants.

The Calcutta High Court issued a permanent injunction, holding that hotels must secure their own copyright licence to broadcast music in guest-room cable systems. Payment of cable subscription fees does not satisfy the statutory licence requirement, exposing hotels and operators to infringement liability.

The Delhi High Court held that a permissive licence does not create adverse possession or trigger the Limitation Act’s time bar, leaving the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the lease-hold suit property. Licensees cannot claim possession on that basis, clarifying rights in lease-hold disputes.

Supreme Court rules that even erroneous fact-based orders bind parties under res judicata unless jurisdictional defects exist. Clarifies impleadment of transferees pendente lite under CPC Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10, impacting property dispute litigants.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld conditional leave to defend under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC in a ₹52 lakh recovery suit, affirming that leave to defend is the rule unless the defendant raises a triable issue. The ruling clarifies the threshold for denying leave in commercial disputes under summary procedure.

Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside dismissal of an Order 41 Rule 27 CPC application, directing the First Appellate Court to adjudicate it concurrently with the main appeal. The ruling reinforces procedural safeguards for admitting additional evidence in civil appeals, ensuring fair adjudication of boundary disputes and demarcation reports.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench quashed a trial court's rejection of a joint measurement application in a boundary dispute, holding that conflicting measurement reports necessitate joint measurement for accurate resolution. The ruling clarifies that such evidence collection is permissible even in suits for declaration and injunction, not just encroachment cases.

Kerala High Court restored an application to set aside an ex parte decree, citing procedural lapses under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within six months, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural justice in civil proceedings.