#CPC

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 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.

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 Bombay HC ruled that permissive use by a relative cannot mature into adverse possession regardless of duration, placing the burden of proof squarely on the claimant. The court also held that an encroachment suit survives technical defects in property description and that the limitation period does not commence against permissive possession.

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 Delhi High Court held that interest on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 runs from the date of dispossession and cannot be denied due to delay in filing amendment applications.

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.

The Orissa HC transferred the family case under Section 24 CPC, noting the wife’s 250 km travel hardship and lack of escort. It allowed the husband’s virtual appearance with safeguards and vacated the 4 Sept 2024 interim order, aiding deserted spouses in remote locations.

The Calcutta High Court barred amendment of pleadings after trial commencement if it defeats the opposite party’s accrued rights, overturning a trial court’s order in a partition suit and upholding Order VI Rule 17 CPC’s proviso to protect parties from prejudicial late amendments.

The Court held that admissions of tenancy and rent payment in a written statement sustain a possession decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, removing the need for separate tenancy proof, and that an eviction suit itself is a valid notice to quit, simplifying landlord recovery.

The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision to vacate an anti-suit injunction against a UK divorce suit. It held that forum non conveniens and comity of courts bar Indian courts from restraining pending foreign matrimonial litigation when foreign forum is appropriate.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a litigant cannot amend its pleadings to contradict an earlier categorical denial, as doing so would undermine judicial discipline. This clarification reinforces the court’s discretion under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to prevent abusive pleading changes, affecting parties seeking to shift defences mid-trial.

The Delhi High Court upheld arrest warrants against an authorized representative for concealing bank assets during execution of an arbitral award, holding that Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC imposes personal liability despite the corporate veil.