Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 26/10/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: C P C

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 664 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHOBHA VASANT BHOIR AND OTHERS Vs. SONI @ VANDANA GURUMUKHDAS JAGIASI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC

Jun 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 648 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJAT KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. S D ADARSH JAIN KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA SADHAURA AND OTHERS ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 636 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAKARDHWAJ RAM Vs. JAGDISH RAI (DEAD) TH. LRS. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 12 Rule 6 — Judgment on Admissions — Scope and Exercise of Discretion — Provision allows for speedy relief where there is no substantial dispute requiring trial, but cannot deprive a party of adjudication if controversy involves disputed questions of fact and requires evidence — Admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional, and unequivocal — Admissions should be clear and intentional, and discretion to pass judgment without trial should be used cautiously, only when admission is absolute, clear, categorical, and unconditional.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 603 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUSHPA AND OTHERS Vs. DAYAWATI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 7 — Pleadings should not raise new claims or inconsistent allegations — A defendant cannot retract their initial stand taken in the written statement and introduce a completely new and contradictory case, especially after issues have been framed and the trial has commenced.

May 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 545 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MONDIRA GHOSH Vs. CHAITALI GHOSH ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No………………of 2026 (@…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 502 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JENNIFER MESSIAS Vs. LEONARD G LOBO ( Before : K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. ….of 2026…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 31 — First Appellate Court’s judgment — Compliance with mandatory requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is substantial rather than technical, and the substance of the judgment and the manner of dealing with the controversy are more significant than the form of points framed. – -Power of Attorney Act, 1882 — General Power of Attorney (GPA) — Misuse of GPA for sale of property — Held, where GPA holder enters into sale deeds and subsequent transfers are within the family, and the original owner fails to prove loan transactions, repayment, or continued possession, the transactions are unlikely to be considered shams or fraudulent.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 529 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALLIKA Vs. R. NALLATHAMBI AND OTHERS ( Before : Ujjal Bhuyan and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 9837…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [

May 17, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA KALRA AND OTHERS Vs. KULVINDER SINGH BHATIA ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of 2026 (@…

C P C Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 28 — Rescission of contract for failure to pay purchase money within time limit prescribed by decree — Court’s discretion to extend time or rescind — Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution does not result in merger of trial court decree — Permitting deposit of balance amount does not extinguish judgment-debtor’s right to seek rescission — Court can consider extending time to balance equities and compensate judgment-debtor for delay, but not automatically — Judgment-debtor’s conduct showing willful negligence is a factor for rescission.

May 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 463 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANAND NARAYAN SHUKLA Vs. JAGAT DHARI ( Before : Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 7355 of 2026…

You missed

Constitution

Can’t Penalise Flat Buyers Who Relied On Official Documents : Supreme Court Directs Alternative Site Before Demolition

Oct 26, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Mere Suit Seeking Recovery Of Possession Not Sufficient When Plaintiff’s Title Is Disputed

Oct 24, 2026 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Supreme Court Quashes Blacklisting Of Drug Supplier Over Quality Failure As Retesting Opportunity Denied

Oct 23, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Accident Claims | Victim Requiring Lifelong Attendant Can Be Considered 100% Functionally Disabled

Oct 23, 2026 sclaw