Impleading Parties in Arbitration: Unresolved Dilemmas
by Simarpreet Kaur Matharoo*
Code of Civil Procedure
Parties in appeal not entitled to produce additional evidence as a matter of right; allowed only in exceptional circumstances: Gujarat High Court
“Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case, the evidence has a direct & important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that the evidence must be permitted to be taken on record, then such an application may be allowed.”
‘O. VI R. 17 does not limit amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings, if it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy’: Sikkim HC
The amendments were imperative for the proper and effective adjudication of the dispute; refusal to allow the amendment application would have caused injustice or resulted in multiple litigations; and the amendments did not constitutionally or fundamentally change the nature of the case.
Or. 14 R. 2 of CPC does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself: Sikkim HC
The Court decided under the aegis of Or.14, R.2 of the CPC that where a question of law is dependent on the determination of a question of fact, then such question of fact cannot be decided as a preliminary issue by the Trial Court.
Inside Supreme Court verdict on easementary rights and powers of Appellate Court
“The easementary right is essentially a right claimed by the owner of land upon another land owned by someone else so that he may enjoy his property in the most beneficial manner.”
Scope of powers to District Registrars under Registration Act cannot be expanded for adjudication of civil disputes or rights: Madras HC
“District Registrar is duty bound to draw a distinction between the summary proceeding and the trial nature proceedings with reference to the Registration Act and the Code of Civil Procedure”
Inside Supreme Court verdict on importance of question of jurisdiction at the stage of granting interim relief
“No tribunal, far less a civil court, in exercise of judicial power ought to play ducks and drakes with the rights of the parties.”
Production of Documents in Civil Cases by Parties on their Own Volition: A Comprehensive Analysis
by Shrikrishna Dagliya† and Vidhi Dagliya††
Rules 97, 98 and 101 of Order 21 of CPC enable Executing Court to adjudicate inter-se claims of decree holder and third parties: Supreme Court reiterates
Supreme Court commented that “The situation is indeed disquieting, viewed from the perspective of the decree holders, but the law, as it stands, has to be given effect whether the court likes the result or not.”
Explained| Allahabad High Court verdict on Gyanvapi Mosque case
In a suit instituted by the Hindu worshippers to secure their right to darshan and pooja of deities Virajman within the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque Complex, the Allahabad High Court said that merely seeking right to worship Hindu deities does not change the Mosque’s character into a Temple.
All’s (Not) Well that Ends Well: The Challenge in Enforcing Domestic Awards before Indian Courts
by Ila Kapoor† and Mrinali Komandur††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 42
Non-impleading of all legal representatives won’t abate the suit if the estate of the deceased is substantially represented by other defendants
Placing its reliance on Bhurey Khan v Yaseen Khan 1995 Supp (3) SCC 331, the Bench stated that the suit will not abate for the reason of non-substitution of all legal representatives of the deceased if the suit was substantially represented.
