PMA Metropolitan v.

Moran Mar Marthoma Church - appeal from every interlocutory order and even if an appeal has not
Definition of a civil suit 1. A suit is civil in nature when it decides been preferred, the order’s validity can be challenged in an appeal
the civil rights of citizens, which includes not only rights but also against the prelmiay decree.
remedies. 2. Civil suit is for private individuals or other known legal §11- Five elements from the explanations- 1. Matter directly and
entities that have their civil rights but need not have established substantially in issue 2. Between the same parties3. Litigating under
independent personality, as distinguished from groups or the same title 4. Comptemcy of the court to try the original suit 5.
associations. Heard and disposed of
S Talabali v. Abdul Aziz - When the Court has not conclusively Nabin Majhi V. Tela Majhi- One of the conditions for the
determined the rights of parties and the suit is pending, it is a applicability of Sc.11 is that the Court in which the former suit was
preliminary decree instituted must be competent to try the subsequent suit. If the former
Venkata Reddy v. Pethy Reddy- In the preliminary decree, certain Court is unable to try the subsequent suit as it is beyond its pecuniary
rights are conclusively determined, and unless the preliminary decree jurisdiction, the decision of the former court will not be res judicata
is challenged in appeal, the rights determined are final and also in the subsequent suit.
cannot be challenged later on. Gangabai v. Vijay Kumar- amendment of pleading
S Balwand Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande- • It is undoubtedly a discretionary power of the Court, but the
Where an appeal against a preliminary decree is not filed, the right discretion has to be exercised subject to the following limitations. 1.
determined therein becomes final and conclusive, and the same Not when it violates any provision of law 2. Not when it encroaches
cannot be questioned in the final decree. justice 3. Not when it violates the provisions of the Limitation Act
India Bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing When can an application for an amendment to pleading not be
Federation Ltd.- No Court should proceed with the trial of the suit granted?
where the issue is already pending in another court on substantially 1. When the amendment is not necessary to determine the case 2. It
the same issue between the same parties and the court where the introduces a totally different new question or controversy or changes
previous suit is filed is competent to grant relief. the fundamental nature of the suit. 3. Where it would take away the
Bal Kishan v. Kishan Lal- §10 is also to avoid the possibility of two legal right of the other party. 4. The Court can also effuse when the
contradictory verdicts by the one and the same court in the same application is not made bona fide
respect. Haridas Alidas v. Godrej- the Court should be extremely liberal in
Banco National Ultramarino V. Nalini Nayak- The expression its approach to an amendment to the pleading. However, the Court
‘legal representative’ is broad in scope and inclusive in character. It has to see whether serious injustice or irreparable loss is being
is not merely limited to the legal heirs. It includes a person who in caused to the other side or not. Is this a decree? - Grant or refusal to
law represents the estate of the person. This includes a person who amend the pleading is not a decree, as there is no determination of
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and also a person on rights in this case. The revisional court has to take into consideration
whom the estate devolves on the death of the party suing or being cogent reasons and compelling circumstances when interfering with
sued, where the party is suing or sued in a representative character. the discretion of the lower Court. The revisional court does not
[Trespasser is not a legal representative as he does not intermeddle lightly interfere with the decision of the lower court unless the two
with the intention of the representing the person]. reasons of compelling circumstances and cogent reasons have been
Shabu Dayakl Katan v. Motilal Murarka - The possession of a co- fulfilled.
sharer can never be wrongful as per Sc.2(12), as they are co- sharers Dileep Kaul v. Major Singh-
of the property. The other co-sharer cannot claim mesne profits from 1. Is it necessary?- is an amendment of the pleading application
the other. The co-sharer who possesses a share in the undivided necessary to determine the decision of the case 2. The Court will see
property has an equal right over the property. that it does not alter or substitute the cause of action- Changing the
PV Shetty v. BS Giridhar - Six essential conditions which have to cause of action is not allowed through amendment 3. Inconsistent
be checked by Court before applying Sc.10 1. It applies to suits and contradictory allegations while you are admitting facts about the
and not orders, applications, petitions, complaints etc. 2. There must claim
be two suits- none previously instituted and another subsequently 4. Proposed amendment is not a prejudice to the other said- The legal
instituted. 3. The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be right of the party is not taken or justice is not hampered 5. It is not
directly and substantially (identical) in issue in the preciously time barred, or there was alternative relief which was not claimed.
instated suit.4. Parties have to be the same. Parties in case of a The time of the Court ius being waste through the application 6. No
company can include the directors, board members etc. 5. They are party should suffer on the account of technicality of the law 7. If
claiming in litigation the same title. 6. The previously instated suit is there is any delay, the Court may impose costs 8. Error or mistake- If
pending. 7. The Court is competent is pass the decree it is not fraudulent, the Court will allow the application
Gupte Cardiac Care Center And Hospital V. Olympic Pharma Jai Jai RAM MANOHAR LAL V NATIONAL BUILDING
Care Pvt Ltd. - Two suits- One case- Same parties- One acts as a MATERIALS SUPPLY, GURGAON- As a general rue, leave to
petitioner in one and defendant in other and vice versa- Held, the amend will be granted so as to enable the real question in issue
suit in Nashik was instituted first, and by virtue of Section 10, the between the parties to be raised in pleadings, where the amendment
suit at Delhi would be stayed. While there were two plaintiffs and will occasion no injury to the opposite party and can be sufficiently
defendants in Nashik and only one each in Nashik, the Court found compensated for by costs or other terms to be imposed by the order.
that there was substantial identity of parties, and the issues for trial The party cannot be denied the remedy of amendment merely
will be the same. The Court transferred the suit from Delhi to Nashik because of some negligence or infraction of rules of procedure.
so that the two can be tried together. This was based on the However negligent the first omission may have been and how late
understanding that only one of the two suits can be decreed and the the first amendment was, if it can be granted without injustice to the
decree in favour of the plaintiff in one would lead to dismissal of the other side, it must be done. Further, it is not necessary that the
second suit. To prevent duplicity of evidence, multiplicity of application should contain a statement to the effect that the
proceedings and possibility of contradictory judgments, the Court amendment must be based on a bona fide mistake. The mistake in
ordered the two suits to be clubbed into one and heard by a one this case pertained to a simple misdescription of the original plaintiff,
court. and the same was allowed.
SATYADHYAN GHOSAL V. DEORAJIN DEBI- Application of RV Dev v. Chief Secretary of Kerala- A person permitted to sue as
res judicata to interlocutory order- Held, an order for revision is an an indigent person is also liable to pay the court fees which would
interlocutory application and res judicata will not apply merely have been paid by him if he was not permitted in the capacity of an
because an appeal had not been preferred from an interlocutory indigent person. Such court fee is merely deferred and not wiped off.
application or no such appeal lies. An interlocutory order which did MAHESH YADAV V. RAJESHWARI SINGH- Remedies
not terminate the proceedings and which had not been appealed available under ex parte decree1. Fresh suit can be filed if it can be
from either because no appeal lay or even though an appeal could proved that the decree was obtained fraudulently 2. Procedure under
lie, an appeal was not taken, could be challenged in an appeal from Order 9, Rule 13 can be followed to set aside the ex parte decree 3.
the final decree or order. This means that no party is required to Appeal can be filed against the ex parte decree
[Party can also file a revision petition] Refusal to grant should cause more injustice than granting it.3.
Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah (1955) – Key Points Prompt Action:
1. Ex-parte Decree Discretionary: The Court may proceed ex parte Plaintiff must have acted quickly after knowing the wrong; delay can
if the defendant doesn’t appear at the fixed time, but it is not bound raise doubt.
to. The Court can allow the defendant to participate later if 1. Acceptance of Circumstances:
[Link] Automatic Ex-parte Decree: Trials must proceed day- If the plaintiff tolerated the wrong for long, injunction may
to-day. If there are long adjournments, absence on one or two calls be refused.
doesn’t automatically lead to an ex-parte decree. [Link] Facilitates 2. Good Faith:
Justice, Not Punishment: Civil trials are not punitive. Non- Plaintiff must approach the Court with utmost honesty.
appearance should not be treated as misconduct deserving 3. Limited Duration:
punishment.4. Natural Justice Principles: CPC is based on natural Ad-interim ex-parte injunction should be granted only
justice—especially audi alteram partem (hear the other side). A for a short, specific time.
defendant must not be barred from participating later. 5. Right to 4. General Injunction Conditions:
Defend Cannot Be Shut Out: Procedures should never block a Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of
defendant’s right to present their case. Even after an ex-parte decree, irreparable harm must be satisfied.
opportunities to defend should exist. Nakendra Anth De v. Suresh Chandra De – Meaning of Appeal
Vijay Kumar Madan v. RN Gupta Technical Education Society (AIR 1932 PC 165)
(2002) – Key Points [Link] Penalty for Removing Ex-parte Status:  Any application to an appellate court seeking to set aside
Civil proceedings should not impose penalties when a defendant or reverse a lower court’s decision qualifies as an appeal.
shows sufficient cause for earlier non-appearance.2Court's Powers: Ingredients of Section 96 CPC (Appeal from Original Decree)
Once satisfied with the cause, the Court can allow filing of a written 1. Adjudication Required:
statement, impose reasonable costs, and set timelines for the There must be a decree for an appeal (except for
proceedings — but not penal conditions.3Suit Must Become appealable orders under Order 43).
Bipartite: When the defendant appears and shows sufficient cause, 2. Aggrieved Person:
the suit must proceed with both parties. Ex-parte status cannot Appeal can be filed by any aggrieved party, even if not
continue [Link] Conditions: Imposing preconditions like originally part of the suit (e.g., decree passed against a
depositing arrears creates a bias and is impermissible once sufficient non-party or minor).
cause is [Link]: No penal action can be taken against 3. Body to Entertain Appeal:
a defendant who validly explains non-appearance. o Appeal must be admitted by a competent body
BP Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh- Where the (court).
affected person had not a party to the petition and some of them were o Admission of an appeal is a serious step since it
only joined, the interests of the persons who had not joined as parties challenges the decree-holder’s victory.
were identical. The Court cannot dismiss the petition on that ground. o The appellant must justify why the appeal
Ram Chandra Arya v. Man Singh – The Supreme Court ruled the deserves to be heard.
decree was a nullity because no guardian was appointed for the Chunni Lal Mehta v. Century Spinning (AIR 1962 SC 1214)
lunatic defendant. Thus, Prabhu Dayal’s possession claim could not Facts: Chunni Lal Mehta was terminated as managing agent by the
be disturbed. A decree against a person incapable of defending (like a company’s Board. He sued for ₹50 lakh as damages in Bombay HC.
lunatic) without a court-appointed guardian is invalid. The company admitted breach but disputed the amount.
Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar- Essentials of notice under Proceedings:
Sc.80 1. Description of the cause of action 2. The name, description, o Trial Court awarded ₹2.34 lakh.
and place of residence of the proposed plaintiff 3. The reliefs claimed o Appellant (Mehta) filed a first appeal —
– There cannot be any ambiguity in the notice 4. Delivery of notice
dismissed.
to the appropriate authority -In the affidavit, it has to be shown that
o Second appeal was sought on a substantial
there was proper delivery of the notice
Krishna Kumar v. Green Bank - The Supreme Court lays down question of law to the SC (since first appeal was
four principles that the Court keeps in mind while appointing the decided by a Division Bench).
receiver-  Supreme Court:
1. The appointment is not the discretion of the Court. The plaintiff o Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) was granted.
will always the defendant to not continue in possession of the o Appellant argued factors like salary increments
property. But, finally, it is the court’s discretion. 2. The objective is were not considered.
the preservation of the property- this means that the character of the o Only substantial questions of law can be argued
property cannot be changed. 3. Prima facie case- The plaintiff has to in second appeal — no new facts.
show that he has an excellent chance to win the case. This is not Relevant Provisions:
subjective, and it has to be conclusively proved that there is a strong  Section 104 CPC: Only specified orders (like certain
chance to win. 4. The purpose of appointing the receiver is to check execution orders) are appealable. Others are not.
that the opposite party is not deprived of their right and it does not  Section 107 CPC: Powers of appellate courts.
cause any injury or harm to the defendant.  Section 109 CPC: Appeals to SC allowed if there’s a
Loon Karan Sethia- substantial question of law.
1. If the receiver is appointed, the appointment holds validity till the  Case Law:
passing of the judgment. The action can be brought to an end by Raghunath Singh v. Deputy Commander of Pratapgarh
judgment. 2. If the duties are not laid down, it is to discharge the (AIR 1927 PC 110) – Appeal to SC lies only on substantial
normal duties from time to time. The receiver cannot prevent the legal issues or if HC certifies the case.
accounts from being disclosed to the Court 3. Though judgment ends
litigation, the receiver will continue to be answerable to the Court. 4.
Even after the final decree, the re can be exigencies, and the Court
may continue to need the presence of the receiver.
Martin Burn v. Banerjee – 1. Prima Facie Case2. Temporary
Injunction First:3. Irreparable Harm:4. Balance of
Convenience:[Link] Conduct: Plaintiff must approach the Court
with clean hands — fair and just behaviour is necessary.
Morgan Stanley v. Kartik Das – Six Points for Granting Ex-
Parte Injunction1. Irreparable or Serious Mischief:
Plaintiff must show risk of serious or irreparable harm.2. Greater
Injustice Test: