Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JOB UPDATES BOOK REVIEWS EVENTS CORNER LAWYERS & LAW FIRMS CARTOONS SC JUDGMENTS लाइव लॉ
हिंदी ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT
Home / Top Stories / Supreme Court CPC...
TOP STORIES
SHARE THIS -
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 1/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] is an important law as far Civil law practitioners
are concerned. Various High Courts have interpreted many provisions of the Code
differently. The following are some of the important judgments delivered by the Supreme
Also Read - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2021 - Part 3 [Citations 501 to 766]
A bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant observed that an appellate
of law as well as fact. It noted that the provision provides for filing of an appeal from the
decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction and Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC provides
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 2/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. The bench said that the
judgment of the appellate court shall state (a) points for determination; (b) the decision
thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is
Also Read - 100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 3, Judgments 76
-100]
Appellate Court Cannot Permit Production Of Additional Evidence Unless & Until
Procedure Under Order XLI Rules 27-29 CPC Is Followed: Supreme Court
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed
that unless and until the procedure under Order XLI Rules 27, 28 and 29 are followed, the
parties to the appeal cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence and/or the
appellate court is not justified to direct the court from whose decree the appeal is
preferred or any other subordinate court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken
Timeline For Pronouncement Of Judgment Prescribed In Order XX CPC Does Not Apply
[Case: SJVNL v. M/s CCC HIM JV & Anr.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 87]
A Bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that timeline for
pronouncement of judgment prescribed in Order XX of CPC does not apply to the High
Court.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 3/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
"It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgment is
contemplated either under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Criminal Procedure Code,
but as the pronouncement of the judgment is a part of justice dispensation system, it has
to be without delay," the bench held.
Also Read - 25 Important Judgements And Happenings In The Bombay High Court
From 2021
Parties Who Privately Agree To Settle Disputes Without Court Intervention U/s 89 CPC
A bench comprising Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran held that the
parties who privately agree to settle their dispute outside the modes contemplated under
Section 89 of CPC are also entitled to refund of Court fees. "The narrow interpretation of
Section 89 of CPC and Section 69A of the 1955 Act sought to be imposed by the
Petitioner would lead to an outcome wherein parties who are referred to a Mediation
Centre or other centres by the Court will be entitled to a full refund of their court fee;
whilst parties who similarly save the Court's time and resources by privately settling their
dispute themselves will be deprived of the same benefit, simply because they did not
Order VII Rue 11 CPC: Court Has Inherent Power To See That Frivolous Or Vexatious
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 4/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
A Division Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta observed that the
provisions of Order VII Rue 11 [Rejection of Plaint] are not exhaustive and the Court has
the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to
The bench observed that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC, the question before the Court is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or
whether the suit is barred by any law, on the face of the averments contained in the plaint
itself. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC the Court is
not to look into the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiff or the defence raised
Application Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC Can Be Allowed Only When Sufficient Cause Is
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy observed that an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be automatically
granted and can be allowed only when sufficient cause is made out to set aside the ex-
parte decree.
Second Appeal: Judgment Should Not Be Interfered With By High Court Unless There Is
A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat reiterated that, the
judgment of the First Appellate Court should not be interfered with by the High Court in
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 5/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless there
is a substantial question of law. The First Appellate Court is the final Court on facts
[Case: Fumo Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. Raj Process Equipments And Systems Pvt. Ltd.; Citation:
LL 2021 SC 216]
The Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that functional convenience of one of the
"A petitioner seeking transfer of a case involving business-related disputes from one
prosecuting or defending the case in a forum otherwise having power to adjudicate the
cause," it observed.
In this case, the petitioner company sought transfer of a subsequent suit instituted by the
respondents against them in Pune to Ahmedabad. The court noted that the petitioners'
case is largely founded on the claim of having approached a judicial forum before the
respondents did and both the suits emanate from the same set of facts with the same
set of parties.
Supreme Court Directs High Courts To Reconsider And Update Rules Relating To
Execution Of Decrees
A bench comprising former CJI SA Bobde, Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra
Bhat directed the High Courts to reconsider and update all the Rules relating to Execution
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 6/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
of Decrees, made under exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
The Court observed that in suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must
examine the parties to the suit under Order X in relation to third party interest and further
exercise the power under Order XI Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce
documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration
Court Cannot Grant Liberty To Amend Plaint While Rejecting It Under Order VII Rule
11(d) CPC
The Supreme Court held that while rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of
Civil Procedure, the Court cannot grant liberty to the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The
proviso to Rule 11 covers the cases falling within the ambit of clauses (b) and (c) and
has no application to a rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the Bench
Second Appeal, After Its Admission With Formulation Of Substantial Question Of Law,
A second appeal, after its admission with formulation of substantial question of law,
cannot be disposed of summarily, the Supreme Court has observed. The bench of
Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that once a second appeal is
admitted, on the High Court being satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 7/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
in the case and with formulation of that question, the appeal is required to be heard in
Order XLI Rule 22 CPC- Cross Objection Not Necessary To Challenge Adverse Findings
The Supreme Court has observed that a party in whose favour a court has decreed the
suit can challenge an adverse finding before the appellate court without a cross
objection. "It is not necessary that a challenge to the adverse findings of the lower court
that it can entertain new grounds raised for the first time in an appeal under Article 136
of the Constitution if it involves a question of law which does not require adducing
additional evidence.
Not Much Scope For Considering 'Territorial Jurisdiction' Issue In A Transfer Petition
U/s 25 CPC
The Supreme Court has observed that there is not much scope of going into the question
Civil Procedure. This point is required to be urged before the Court in which the suit is
pending, Justice Aniruddha Bose observed while dismissing a transfer petition. In this
case, the petitioner is a defendant in a suit instituted in the Court of District Judge,
Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi alleging infringement of trade mark and
copyright.
Res Judicata Is Not A Ground To Reject A Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 8/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
[Case: Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat; Citation: LL 2021 SC 364]
The Supreme Court has observed that the Res Judicata cannot be a ground for rejection
of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. "Since an
adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues
and decision in the 'previous suit', such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule
11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.", the bench
Second Appeal- High Courts Can Exercise Limited Factual Review Under Section 103
CPC
The Supreme Court has observed that High Courts are empowered to exercise limited
factual review under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bench of Justices L.
Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed that the rule that sans a substantial
question of law, the High Courts cannot interfere with findings of the lower Court or
concurrent findings of fact, is subject to the following two important caveats: First, if the
findings of fact are palpably perverse or outrage the conscience of the court; in other
words, it flies on the face of logic that given the facts on the record, interference would
be justified. Second, where the findings of fact may call for examination and be upset, in
Commercial Suits & Requirement Of Establishing Reasonable Cause For Non Disclosure
[Case: Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B; Citation: LL 2021 SC 458]
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 9/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
The Supreme Court has observed that the requirement under Order XI Rule 1(4) of Code
cause for non disclosure of the documents along with the plaint under shall not be
applicable if it is averred and it is the case of the plaintiff that those documents have
been found subsequently and in fact were not in the plaintiff's power, possession, control
The Apex Court bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed, "However, at
the same time, the requirement of establishing the reasonable cause for non disclosure
of the documents along with the plaint shall not be applicable if it is averred and it is the
case of the plaintiff that those documents have been found subsequently and in fact
were not in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody at the time when the
Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Plaint Can't Be Rejected If Limitation Is A Mixed Question Of
[Case: Salim D.Agboatwala and others v.Shamalji Oddavji Thakkar and others; Citation:
LL 2021 SC 476]
The Supreme Court has held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d)
of the Code of Civil Procedure if the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and
while reversing a Bombay High Court's judgment which had upheld a civil court's order to
reject a plaint. The suit in question was filed essentially to set aside an order passed by
the Agricultural Land Tribunal to issue sale certificate in respect of a tenancy under the
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 10/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint Has To Be Rejected If Reliefs Claimed In It Cannot Be
The Supreme Court observed that a court has to reject a plaint if it finds that none of the
reliefs sought in it can be granted to the plaintiff under the law. In such a case, it will be
necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted,
the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed. The court added that
underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a
cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the
proceedings.
Section 92 CPC- Judgment In Representative Suit Binds All Parties Interested In The
Trust
The Supreme Court observed that a suit under section 92 CPC is of a representative
character and all persons interested in the Trust would be bound by the judgment in the
suit. Such persons interested would be barred by the principle of res judicata from
instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue, the bench of
Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli observed. The court added that
while deciding on a scheme for administration in a representative suit filed under Section
92 of the CPC the court may, if the title is contested, have to decide if the property in
respect of which the scheme for administration and management is sought belongs to
the Trust.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 11/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
Order IX Rule 13 CPC : Supreme Court Holds Defendant Who Refused Summons Not
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the High Court, which had allowed the
setting aside of an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat noted that Sub-
Rule (5) of Order V Rule 9 of the Code states inter alia that if the defendant or his agent
had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the summons, the court
issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the
defendant.
First Appellate Court Should Deal With All Issues And Evidence And Follow Procedure
Under CPC
The Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of the First Appellate Court to deal with all
the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. First appeals
are to be decided after following the procedure to be followed under the Code of Civil
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - Period For Filing Of Written Statement Is Directory In Civil Suits;
The Supreme Court observed that the period of 90 days for filing of written statement
under Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure in civil suits is directory. The bench of
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 12/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian held the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1
CPC are mandatory in the Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. "It
may be stated herein that the provisions of Order 8 Rule of CPC are mandatory in the
Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015", the Supreme Court
observed.
Order XXI Rule 16 CPC - Transferee Of Rights In Subject Matter Of Suit Can Apply For
The Supreme Court observed that the Explanation to Order XXI Rule 16 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, removed the distinction between an assignment pre-the decree and an
assignment post the decree. Thus, the court observed that there is no bar under Order
XXI Rule 16 against assignee who acquired rights prior to decree from making an
application to execute the decree. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul
and BR Gavai observed that the objective of the said amendment is to avoid multifarious
assignment in the execution proceedings itself. The bench was hearing an appeal arising
out of a claim based of an assignee of the decree holder in terms of Order XXI Rule 16
CPC ( application for execution by transferee of decree). During the pendency of the
execution proceedings, the decree holder died. The appellants (now before SC) filed
application before the executing court under Section 47 read with Order 22 Rules 1&2 of
the CPC. This claim was based on the basis of an assignment made by the deceased
decree holder (prior to decree). This application was dismissed by the Trial Court, and
High Court Cannot Dismiss Second Appeal In Limine Without Assigning Reasons
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 13/24
12/31/21, 9:53 PM Supreme Court CPC Digest : Important Civil Law Judgments Of 2021
[Case: Hasmat Ali v. Amina Bibi and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 689]
Holding that a High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure in limine without assigning reasons, the Supreme Court remitted
a matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. A Bench comprising Justices S.
Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed that if the case does not involve any
substantial question of law, the High Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal.
However, in order to come to a conclusion that the appeal does not involve any
SC 712]
The Supreme Court held that claims raised by an obstructor including questions relating
to right, title or interest in the property in execution proceedings filed by the decree holder
against the judgment debtor, has to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court in the
accordance with Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97
be determined by the Court dealing with the application and for that a separate suit is not
required to be filed.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cpc-digest-important-civil-law-judgments-of-2021-188573 14/24