#court procedure

The Karnataka High Court ruled that a xerox copy of an agreement of sale can be admitted as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act when the original is lost due to court staff negligence, provided there is no evidence of tampering. This sets a critical precedent for property litigants facing evidentiary loss through systemic administrative failure, reinforcing that procedural lapses by courts do not automatically bar reliance on authenticated duplicates.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that when a public authority admits liability in its written statement, it cannot later invoke limitation as a defence in appeal - reinforcing the principle that the State must act with fairness and consistency. This sets a binding standard for all government entities in civil litigation, ensuring they cannot exploit procedural technicalities after conceding the merits.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that suits seeking specific performance or injunction relating to immovable property cannot be filed where the contract was signed - jurisdiction is determined solely by the property’s physical location. This reinforces a strict interpretation of Section 16 CPC, impacting developers, landowners, and litigants attempting to forum-shop in urban centers like Bhopal for rural property disputes.

Punjab & Haryana High Court dismisses a revision petition challenging a Vakalatnama filed four years prior, ruling that delayed claims of forgery at the final trial stage constitute abuse of process. The court held that valid service of summons and prolonged silence without protest bar relief under principles of acquiescence and laches, reinforcing procedural finality in litigation.

Bombay High Court clarifies that failure to comply with office objections under O.S. Rule 986 by the stipulated date results in automatic rejection of petitions and applications.