What are the landmark cases in CPC 1908? Read this to learn more about some of the landmark judgments on the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
List of some Landmark Cases in CPC 1908
Given below are some of the landmark cases in CPC 1908.
Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v PJ Pappu, 1966
In this case, the court held that as a general rule, neither consent nor waiver nor acquiescence can confer jurisdiction upon a court, otherwise incompetent to try a suit.
However, the same may be subject to the terms of a valid contract between the parties as was held by the Supreme Court in the next case.
Angile Insulations v Davy Ashmore India Ltd., 1995
Where two or more courts have jurisdiction consequent upon a part of the cause of action arising therewith if the parties stipulate in the contract to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try the disputes arising between themselves.
And if the contract is unambiguous, explicit, and clear, and is not void or opposed to S.23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, then a suit would lie only in the court agreed to by the parties and the other court/s will have no jurisdictions even though the cause of action arose partly within the jurisdiction of the other court.
National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v C Parameshwara, 2005
This is one of the landmark cases in CPC concerning the principle of res-sub-judice and res-judicata as provided u/ss 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
S.10 of the Code, which deals with the principle of res sub judice, provides that no court shall proceed with the trial of a suit in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties before another court of competent jurisdiction.
The court held that the object of this provision is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction (in some cases where more than one court may have the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute) from simultaneously entertaining two parallel litigations in respect of the same dispute.
S.11 of the Code, which deals with the principle of res judicata provides that once a dispute has been finally adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the same dispute cannot be agitated again in another suit afresh.
The aim of this principle is to give finality to judicial decisions and a person should not be vexed twice in respect of the same matter.
Vidyodaya Trust v Mohan Prasad 2008
S.92 of the Code provides that a suit may be filed in respect of breach of trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature and the same may be filed by the Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust with the leave of the court. The reliefs, which may be claimed in such a suit, are also set out.
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 1992
This is one of the landmark cases in CPC concerning necessary and proper parties. In this case, the court held conclusively that a suit must be filed against all “necessary parties”, that is, those whose presence is indispensable to the constitution of the suit, against whom the relief is sought, and without whom, no effective decree can be passed.
Another frequently-used term is “proper party”, which is a party in whose absence an effective order can be passed, but whose presence is required for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the suit.
Where a person, who is a necessary or a proper party to a suit, has not been joined as a party to the suit, it is a case of non-joinder. If a person, who is not a necessary or a proper party, has been made a party to the suit, it is a case of misjoinder.
A suit cannot be dismissed only on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties, but this rule is not applicable in the case of non-joinder of a necessary party. All objections on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties must be taken at the earliest opportunity, otherwise, such objection will be deemed to have been waived. (Order I, Rule 13 of the Code).
Ganesh Trading Co. v Moji Ram 1978
The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow the plaintiff or the defendant to alter or amend their pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments must be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in the controversy between the parties.
However, no application for amendment will be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. v Solanki Traders 2008
The power of the court under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 (attachment of property before judgment) of the Code is a drastic and extraordinary power.
Such power should not be used mechanically or merely for the asking. It should be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with the Rule. The purpose of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code is not to convert unsecured debt into a secured debt.
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v Coca Cola 1995
Relief by way of interlocutory injunction (Order 39 CPC) is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved.
In order to protect the defendant, the court can require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking so that the defendant can be adequately compensated if the uncertainty were resolved in his favor at the trial.
Also, before granting an injunction, a court must give notice to the opposite parties unless it is satisfied that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay in giving notice.
See also-
Credits
- AIBE Preparatory Material
- Indian Kanoon