LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     14 November 2009

Latest Judgments by SC on CPC


Date: 07/07/2009


Or.8, r.9 - Subsequent pleadings - Additional written statement - Held: Even by filing an amendment or additional written statement, it is open to defendant to add a new ground of defence or to substitute or alter the defence or even to take inconsistent pleas in the written statement so long as the pleadings do not result in causing grave injuries/irretrievable prejudice to plaintiff - Mere delay is not sufficient to refuse amendment of pleadings or an additional written statement - High Court was not justified in rejecting tenant's application for permission to file additional written statement, as no prejudice could be caused to landlord which would otherwise be compensated in terms of cost - Order of High Court set aside and that of tribunals below allowing to file additional WS is restored - Additional WS field by tenant be accepted - Tamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 - s.25.

TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT) CONTROL Act, 1960: s.25 - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - Filing of additional written statement allowed by Rent Controller and Appellate Tribunal - Order reversed by High Court - Held: In absence of any perversity or arbitratriness in the concurrent orders of the tribunals below, it was not open to High Court to interfere with the same -

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.8, r.9.In a petition by landlord-respondents seeking fixation of fair rent, the tenant-appellant moved an application for permission to file an additional written statement. The Rent Controller allowed the application. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order. However, the High Court, in the revision petition filed by the landlord, set aside the concurrent orders of the tribunals below and rejected the tenant's application on the grounds that the tenant filed the application belatedly when the examination of PW1 had already been over; and that in the additional WS a new plea was raised, which was a fundamental alteration of the pleadings already put forth in the WS.


 10 Replies

Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     14 November 2009


Date: 21/07/2009


Interim injunction - Relevant factors to be taken into consideration -Explained - HELD: When a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction, appellate court would be slow to interfere except for sufficient and cogent reasons - In the instant case, trial court on consideration of materials on record refused interim injunction - High Court rightly declined to interfere with -

Urban Development.


Town planning - Rehabilitation of slum dwellers - Agreement between slum dwellers and developers to construct residential accommodation for slum dwellers provided they produce eligibility certificate and the plot encroached upon by them is declared as slum area - Slum dwellers failed to get required certificate - HELD: Grant of eligibility certificate was sine qua non for enforcement of agreement and in its absence, agreement came to an end - Assuming that modification of nature of construction was permissible, in absence of modification order, statutory interdict gets attracted and developer could not be permitted to raise construction for residential purpose - Development Control Regulations 1991 - Regulation 57(4)(c).

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908:Or. 41 - r. 27 - Production of additional evidence in appellate court - HELD: Filing of documents as additional evidence must be in terms of Or. 41
r. 27 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966.The appellants, (slum dwellers) and/or their predecessors-in-interest had encroached upon a property bearing CTS No.61. An agreement dated 26.6.2005 was entered into between the parties with regard to rehabilitation of the appellants on CTS No.82. One of the conditions of the agreement was that the appellants would obtain eligibility certificate from the competent authority. However, the respondents started construction of commercial building on Survey No.82. The appellants filed a suit in the City Civil Court for a declaration inter alia that the plaintiffs were entitled to be provided a flat each of carpet area of 225 sq.ft. on CTS No.82. An interim injunction was prayed that pending final disposal of the suit, construction activities on CTS No.82 be stayed. The trial court held that as the appellant failed to obtain essentiality certificate and CTS no.61 was not declared as slum area, the question of taking recourse of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme did not arise. The appeal filed by the slum dwellers having been dismissed by the High Court, they filed the appeal.


5 Like

Vikram Chandra (Advocate)     14 November 2009

 Hi Friends!

       I am looking for a civil lawyer to defend a suit for recovery of money. Can I have the names, mobile numbers, email addresses of lawyers who are practicing regularly in Faridabad Court to proceed with the matter.



Vikram Chandra (Advocate)     14 November 2009

 I am sorry that post could be in other zone, I am really sorry, but still if anyone gives me the names of advocates and other details it is fine.


Anish goyal (Advocate)     14 November 2009

Thanks sir 4 sharing

Arun Krishnan (Student)     16 November 2009

 Thanks for the case laws

Adinath@Avinash Patil (advocate)     20 November 2009



thanx 4 d case law

girishankar (manager)     16 February 2010

Thanks Sir.........

bhanu pratap720 (Student)     18 February 2010

i need case law on the point that under order 14 rule 1 and 5 of code of civil procedure 1908 the appellate court  shoul not frame  issues.

Patira Gunwant (Legal Adviser & Consultant)     20 June 2011

Thanks a lot for judgements. Kindly do favour me with more of Judgements of Supreme Court and of Bombay High court on Order 8 Rule of C.P.C. (Written Statement Filing beyond 90 days period (limitation as per Act 22 of 2002) Regards.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register