List of Current Affairs

Source: High Court of Bombay  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Abhay Ahuja held that in a transferred suit filed prior to the Commercial Courts Act, formal service of writ of summons is not required if the defendant has already entered appearance or filed Vakalatnama at the interlocutory stage. 

• The High Court of Bombay held this in the matter of Anil Dhanraj Jethani and another v. Firoz A. Nadiadwala and others (2025). 

What was the Background of Anil Dhanraj Jethani and another v. Firoz A. Nadiadwala and others. (2025) Case? 

• On 19th August 2015, the Plaintiffs filed Suit No. 1148 of 2015 as a regular civil suit in the Bombay High Court seeking recovery of Rs. 24,00,00,000/-. 
• The suit was filed prior to the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which came into effect on 23rd October 2015. 
• On 20th August 2015, copies of the plaint along with exhibits and notice of motion were served upon Defendant No. 1, who was notified of the hearing date of 24th August 2015. 
• Defendant No. 1 appeared through India Law Alliance and was represented by a Senior Advocate at the hearings on 24th August 2015, 28th August 2015, and 1st September 2015. 
• On 1st September 2015, a consent order was passed whereby Defendant No. 2 deposited Rs. 12,50,00,000/- in court with liberty to Plaintiffs to withdraw unconditionally, and the balance Rs. 11,50,00,000/- was to be paid prior to release of Defendant No. 1's next production film. 
• On 21st October 2016, the Prothonotary & Senior Master converted the regular suit to Commercial Suit No. 88 of 2015 and transferred it to the Commercial Division of the court. 
• The Prothonotary & Senior Master directed the original Defendants to file written statements by 21st November 2016, later extended to 13th December 2016. 
• When Defendants No. 1 and 2 neither appeared nor filed written statements, the suit was transferred to the list of undefended suits on 13th December 2016. 
• On 9th June 2023, Defendant No. 1 filed the present application claiming that no formal writ of summons was ever served upon them, constituting a procedural offence under the applicable rules. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that since the captioned suit was originally filed as a regular suit prior to the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and subsequently converted to a commercial suit, the rigours of the Commercial Courts Act and amended Civil Procedure Code,1908 (CPC) provisions relating to service of summons do not apply to transferred suits. 
• The Court noted that Defendant No. 1 had already entered appearance at the interlocutory stage and filed Vakalatnama, thereby satisfying the object and purpose of serving a writ of summons, making formal service redundant. 
• The Court observed that in transferred suits under Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, it is the Commercial Division of the Court that has the discretion to fix timelines, not the mandatory 120-day period applicable to fresh commercial suits. 
• The Court found that proof of service of writ of summons may be dispensed if circumstances show that the defendant not only had notice of the suit but actually appeared in the proceedings, even at the interlocutory stage. 
• The Court observed that the orders dated 21st October 2016 and 13th December 2016 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master were without jurisdiction, as only the Commercial Division could fix timelines for transferred suits under Section 15(4). 
• The Court noted that Defendant No. 1 was not only served with copies of the plaint, exhibits and notice of motion, but was also represented by senior advocates at multiple hearings, indicating full knowledge of the plaintiffs' claim. 
• The Court observed that it would be too technical and result in a wastage of judicial time to insist on formal service of writ of summons when the defendant had already appeared and was aware of the nature of the claim. 
• The Court found that the distinction between fresh commercial suits and transferred suits is expressly carved out under the Commercial Courts Act, and no discrimination or unfair treatment arises from applying different procedural requirements. 
• The Court observed that the failure to serve formal writ of summons does not constitute a procedural offence warranting dismissal of the suit in cases of transferred suits where the defendant has entered appearance and filed Vakalatnama.

What is Order V of CPC,1908? 

• Order V of the CPC, which deals with the "Issue and Service of Summons". 
• Issue of Summons (Rules 1-8): 
  • When a suit is filed, summons may be issued to defendants requiring them to appear and file their written statement within 30 days. 
  • Defendants can appear in person, through a pleader, or with a pleader accompanied by someone who can answer material questions. 
  • Courts can order personal appearance, when necessary, but only for parties residing within specified distance limits. 
  • Summons must specify whether it's for settlement of issues only or final disposal of the suit. 
• Service of Summons (Rules 9-30):  
  • The rules provide detailed procedures for serving summons through various methods: 
  • Regular service: By court officers, registered post, speed of post, courier services, or electronic means (fax, email). 
  • Service on agents: When defendants have authorized agents or are absent. 
  • Service on family members: When the defendant is absent and no agent is available. 
  • Substituted service: When defendants are avoiding service - by affixing copies in conspicuous places or newspaper advertisements. 
  • Special service situations: For defendants in prison, residing outside India, military personnel, public officers, etc. 
• Important Time Limits: 
  • Defendants must file written statements within 30 days of service. 
  • Extension possible up to 120 days maximum with court permission and payment of costs. 
  • After 120 days, defendants forfeit the right to file written statements. 
• Cross-jurisdictional Service:  
  • The rules cover service when defendants reside in different states, foreign countries (including specific provisions for Bangladesh and Pakistan), and through diplomatic channels. 
• This Order ensures proper notification to all parties in civil suits while providing flexibility for various practical situations that may arise during the service process. 

Cases Referred  

• Tardeo Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda (2007): 
  • Entering appearance at the interlocutory stage/filing of Vakalatnama will not do away with the requirement of serving a writ of summons. 
• Meena Ramesh Lulla and Others v. Omprakash A. Alreja and Another (2011): 
  • If the Defendant enters an appearance/files Vakalatnama, formal service of writ of summons cannot be insisted upon and the suit is deemed to have been served. 
• Bombay High Court Notification,2008: 
  • If a Defendant/Respondent has entered an appearance and filed its Vakalatnama, "there shall be no necessity of serving the Writ of Summons or filing Affidavit of service". 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908( CPC) cannot be construed to mean that the defendant can keep reagitating the same objection at different stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been determined conclusively at a previous stage. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (2025) Case?   

• The appellant is the grandson of Late Jameela Beevi, who was the original defendant in O.S. No. 617 of 1996 filed by respondent no. 1 before the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad. 
• On 14th June 1996, Jameela Beevi executed an agreement to sell a shop property to the original plaintiff for ₹6,00,000, with ₹1,50,000 payable within three months. The appellant was a witness to this agreement. 
• The suit property comprises a tiled-roofed shop on 1 cent of land located in Palakkad, Kerala. It was purchased by Jameela Beevi through an assignment deed dated 10th September 1976. 
• Clause 8 of the deed indicated tenancy rights of one of Jameela Beevi’s sons, Late Shahul Hameed (father of the appellant), who was a tenant from 1969 until his death on 1st November 1992. 
• The plaintiff claimed he was always ready to pay the balance but Jameela Beevi failed to execute the sale deed, leading to a suit for specific performance. 
• On 30th June 1998, the Trial Court decreed the suit ex parte in favour of the plaintiff. 
• Jameela Beevi filed I.A. No. 2204 of 1998 to set aside the ex parte decree, which was dismissed on 30th June 1999. 
• The High Court allowed her appeal in CMA No. 125 of 1999, restoring the suit for trial. 
• In her written statement, Jameela Beevi denied the sale agreement and alleged forgery by the plaintiff. 
• On 17th March 2003, the Trial Court decreed the suit again, holding the agreement valid and enforceable. 
• The decree was challenged in RFA No. 281 of 2003, which the High Court dismissed on 2nd August 2008. 
• The Supreme Court also dismissed SLP (C) No. 18880 of 2008 on 13th August 2008, making the decree final. 
• On 30th July 2003, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2548 of 2003 for execution of the decree under Section 28(5) of the Specific Relief Act and Order XXI Rule 19 of the CPC. 
• Jameela Beevi died on 19th October 2008, and the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 3823 of 2008 on 20th November 2008 to implead her legal heirs. 
• Some legal heirs objected to execution, claiming possession was not granted and the full balance amount was not deposited on time. 
• The Trial Court found that the deposit of ₹97,116 on 30th July 2003 was valid as per the High Court’s earlier order in I.A. No. 931 of 2004 and held possession was implied in the decree. 
• On 11th April 2012, I.A. No. 669 of 2009 seeking rescission of the contract was dismissed. 
• The High Court dismissed CRP No. 233 of 2012 on 14th June 2012, affirming the dismissal of the rescission petition. 
• On 19th July 2012, the appellant filed I.A. No. 2348 of 2012 seeking deletion of his name from the party array, claiming he was a tenant and not a legal heir. 
• On 19th June 2013, the Trial Court dismissed the appellant’s I.A., noting that he had participated in the proceedings since 2008 without objection and was now attempting to delay the execution. 
• The Trial Court held that the plea was barred by constructive res judicata and lacked bona fides. 
• The appellant challenged the order in O.P. (C) No. 2290 of 2013, which was dismissed by the High Court on 29th November 2021. 
• The High Court ruled that the appellant’s impleadment was valid, and his application was barred by res judicata. It also upheld the Trial Court’s rejection of his claim of independent possession. 
• The appellant has now approached the Supreme Court by filing the present appeal against these orders. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The law allows courts to add or remove parties at any stage under Order I Rule 10 CPC, but this power cannot be misused to undo an impleadment under Order XXII Rule 4 after several years without initial objection. 
• If the appellant had objections to his impleadment as a legal heir, he should have raised them at the time of impleadment under Sub-rule (2) of Order XXII Rule 4. 
• If the Trial Court had rejected his objection, the appellant could have challenged it by filing a revision application before the High Court. 
• The appellant, despite being impleaded and participating in proceedings since 2008, never objected to his impleadment or raised the claim of being an independent tenant until four years later. 
• He also remained silent during earlier proceedings related to rescission of the contract under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, both at the Trial Court and in the High Court. 
• The Supreme Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar (2004) held that the principle of res judicata applies even at different stages within the same proceeding. 
• While courts can act at "any stage" under Order I Rule 10, the same issue cannot be repeatedly raised at different stages once conclusively settled. 
• The Calcutta High Court in Tarini Charan Bhattacharya v. Kedar Nath Haldar (1928) clarified that even an erroneous legal decision can operate as res judicata if not challenged timely. 
• In contrast to earlier cases where impleadment under Order XXII Rule 4 was clearly mistaken, in the present case, the appellant had no such ground and the correct remedy lay in timely objection, not in belated invocation of Order I Rule 10. 
• Regarding the appellant’s claim that the decree did not include possession, the Court reaffirmed its ruling in Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd.(2024)  and Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (1982), holding that where the seller had exclusive possession, the decree for specific performance implicitly includes the obligation to deliver possession. 
• Hence, the claim that the decree-holder is not entitled to possession lacks merit and is rejected. 
• Both the Trial Court and the High Court correctly rejected the appellant’s application, and the Supreme Court found no legal error in their findings. 
• The appeal is dismissed with costs of ₹25,000 to be paid by the appellant to the Legal Services Authority within two weeks. 
• As the sale deed has already been executed in favour of the respondent no. 1, the Executing Court must now ensure that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property is delivered to him within two months, using police assistance if necessary. 

What is Order I Rule 10 of CPC? 

About: 

• Order I Rule 10 inter alia empowers the court to allow addition, substitution or deletion of a party to a suit at any stage of the proceedings. 
• Order I Rule 10 (1) provides for when the suit is filed in the name of wrong plaintiff. 
  • This provision allows courts to correct situations where a lawsuit has been filed by the wrong person as the plaintiff or where there is uncertainty about whether the correct plaintiff has filed the suit. 
  • The court has the discretionary power to make corrections at any stage of the legal proceedings, meaning this remedy is available throughout the entire duration of the case. 
  • For the court to exercise this power, it must be satisfied that the error occurred due to a genuine mistake made in good faith, not through any fraudulent or malicious intent. 
  • The court must also determine that substituting or adding the correct plaintiff is necessary for resolving the actual dispute at the heart of the case. 
  • When the court decides to make such changes, it can either substitute the wrong plaintiff with the right one or add additional plaintiffs to the case as deemed appropriate. 
  • The court has the authority to impose whatever terms and conditions it considers fair and just when making these changes to ensure all parties are treated equitably. 
  • This provision serves as a procedural safeguard to prevent cases from being dismissed purely due to technical errors in naming the plaintiff, thereby promoting the substantive resolution of disputes. 
• Sub-rule (2) of Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) grants the court wide discretion to add or remove parties at any stage of the suit proceedings. 
  • The court can strike out or add parties at any stage of proceedings, either on application by a party or on its own initiative. 
  • The court may remove any party that has been improperly joined to the case, whether as plaintiff or defendant. 
  • The court can add any person who should have been included as a party but was omitted from the original suit. 
  • The court may also add parties whose presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of all issues in the case. 
  • All such orders are made on terms that the court considers just and fair to all parties involved. 
  • This power ensures proper constitution of parties for comprehensive resolution of disputes. 
• Sub- rule (3) of Order I Rule 10 of CPC provides for consent requirements: 
  • No person can be added as a plaintiff who requires a next friend (legal guardian) to sue on their behalf without that person's explicit consent. 
  • Similarly, no person can be added as a next friend for a plaintiff under disability without their consent to act in that capacity. 
• Sub- rule (4) of Order I Rule 10 of CPC provides for Amendment when defendant is added: 
  • When a new defendant is added to the case, the plaint (statement of claim) must be amended to reflect this change unless the court directs otherwise. 
  • Amended copies of both the summons and the plaint must be served on the newly added defendant. 
  • The court may also order that amended copies be served on the original defendant if it considers this appropriate. 
• Sub – rule (5) of Order I Rule 10 of CPC provides for limitation period for added defendants. 
  • The legal proceedings against any newly added defendant are considered to have commenced only from the date when the summons is served on them. 
  • This provision is subject to the requirements of section 22 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, which governs time limits for legal actions.
• Relevant Case Law: 
  • Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992): 
    • Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 grants courts wide discretionary power to remedy defects in parties and is not limited by the plaintiff's failure to bring necessary parties on record. 
    • A necessary party is defined as one without whom no effective order can be made by the court. 
    • A proper party is one whose absence does not prevent an effective order, but whose presence is required for complete and final decision on all issues. 
    • The addition of parties is generally a matter of judicial discretion based on case facts rather than a question of the court's initial jurisdiction. 
    • A person can only be added as a party if they have a direct legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation, not merely a commercial interest. 
    • For a person to be made a necessary party, their presence must be required so they can be bound by the court's decision, and the questions cannot be effectually settled without them. 
    • The test for adding parties is whether the court's order may directly affect the person's enjoyment of their legal rights. 
    • Having relevant evidence or arguments does not make someone a necessary party - that would only make them a necessary witness. 
    • The rule aims to ensure complete adjudication rather than merely preventing multiplicity of actions, though that may be an incidental benefit.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan reaffirmed that the principle of res judicata applies even to different stages of the same proceeding, barring re-agitation of issues that could have been raised earlier. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sulthan said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Sulthan said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (2025)? 

• The litigation concerns a commercial property measuring 1 cent, comprising a tiled-roof shop with three-sided walls and front shutters, situated in Keezhumuri Desom, Ward No. 3, Block 42, Survey No. 1895, Palakkad Town, Kerala. 
• The original dispute arose between the plaintiff-purchaser and defendant Jameela Beevi regarding specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14th June 1996. 
• The agreement to sell was executed for total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-, with Rs. 4,50,000/- paid as advance and balance Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid within three months.  
• The appellant, grandson of the original defendant, served as witness to this agreement. The defendant had originally acquired the property through an assignment deed dated 10th September1976. 
• When the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite legal notice, the plaintiff instituted OS No. 617/1996 for specific performance. The suit was initially decreed ex parte on 30.06.1998 but was restored for trial following a successful challenge by the defendant. After contested proceedings, the suit was finally decreed on 17.03.2003, directing execution of sale deed upon payment of balance consideration. 
• The defendant's appeal (RFA No. 281/2003) was dismissed by the Kerala High Court on 02nd August 2008. Subsequently, the Supreme Court also dismissed the defendant's SLP (C) No. 18880/2008 on 13th August 2008, thereby affirming the decree for specific performance. 
• Following the defendant's failure to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed execution application IA No. 2548/2003. During pendency of execution, the original defendant died on 19th October 2008, necessitating impleadment of legal heirs through IA No. 3823/2008, which was allowed without objection from any of the proposed legal heirs, including the present appellant. 
• Multiple applications were subsequently filed by various legal heirs seeking rescission of contract, which were consistently rejected by both trial court and High Court. The present appellant remained silent throughout these proceedings despite being served and appearing as respondent. 
• Only in July 2012, approximately four years after his impleadment and within a month of dismissal of the rescission application, did the appellant file IA No. 2348/2012 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion from party array. He claimed he was wrongly impleaded under Mohammedan law and asserted inherited tenancy rights from his deceased father, despite having witnessed the sale agreement and participating in prior proceedings without raising such objections. 
• The deletion application was dismissed by the trial court on 19th June 2013, and subsequently by the Kerala High Court in OP(C) No. 2290/2013 on 29.11.2021, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. Throughout this protracted litigation spanning over two decades, the plaintiff has been unable to obtain possession despite holding a final decree since 2003. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court categorically held that the doctrine of res judicata operates not merely inter se different proceedings but extends its application to successive stages within the same proceeding.  
• The Court emphasized that once a matter attains finality through judicial determination at any stage, parties are precluded from re-agitating identical issues at subsequent stages of the same litigation.   
• The Court observed that where impleadment of legal heirs is affected after due enquiry under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC following the demise of a defendant, and such impleadment proceeds without objection despite service of notice and appearance by the proposed legal heir, the said impleadment attains finality.  
• Any subsequent application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion from the party array, filed after considerable delay and multiple intervening proceedings, constitutes an abuse of process and is barred by constructive res judicata.   
• The Court noted that the timing of the deletion application, filed immediately after the dismissal of other dilatory applications, coupled with the appellant's prolonged silence despite multiple opportunities to object, seriously impugns the bona fides of the application. Such conduct demonstrates a calculated strategy to protract proceedings rather than genuine grievance regarding impleadment.  
• The Court held that bare assertions of tenancy rights, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation and contradicted by the party's own conduct as witness to the sale agreement, cannot be sustained. 
• The Court emphasized that tenancy claims raised for the first time during execution proceedings, without any foundation in pleadings or earlier proceedings, constitute afterthoughts designed to obstruct decree execution.   

What are the Principles of Res judicata ? 

• Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the principle of res judicata, which prevents courts from trying any suit or issue where the matter has already been directly and substantially decided in a former suit between the same parties by a competent court. 
• Key Elements: 
  • Same parties or those claiming under them. 
  • Same title of litigation. 
  • Matter must be directly and substantially in issue in both suits. 
  • Previous decision must be heard and finally decided by a competent court. 
• Core Principle:  
  • The section embodies the legal maxim that no matter should be adjudicated twice - once a court of competent jurisdiction has decided an issue between parties, neither party can re-litigate the same matter in subsequent proceedings. 
• Important Explanations: 
  • Explanation IV is particularly significant - it deems that any matter which "might and ought to have been" raised as defense or attack in the former suit is considered to have been directly in issue. 
  • Explanation VII extends res judicata to execution proceedings. 
  • Explanation VIII allows decisions of courts with limited jurisdiction to operate as res judicata in subsequent suits. 
• Based on three Latin maxims: 
  • Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium - There should be an end to litigation. 
  • Nemo Debet Bis Vexari - No person should be vexed twice for the same cause. 
  • Res Judicata Pro Veritate Occipitur - Judicial decisions must be accepted as correct.

Cases Referred  

• Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar (2005): This case established that res judicata principles apply not only between different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding, preventing parties from re-litigating settled issues. 
• Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (1960): The Supreme Court held that res judicata is essential for giving finality to judicial decisions, preventing parties from re-agitating matters already decided, whether between past and future litigation or between different stages of the same proceeding. 
• Y.B. Patil And Ors v. Y.L. Patil (1976): This case clarified that once an order becomes final during the course of proceedings, it becomes binding at subsequent stages of the same proceeding under res judicata principles. 
• Hope Plantations Ltd. V. Taluk Land Board Peermade (1999): The Court emphasized that decisions by competent courts should be final unless modified by appellate authorities, and no person should face the same litigation twice as it would be contrary to fair play and justice. 
• S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao (2022):  This case reaffirmed that even erroneous decisions remain binding on parties in the same litigation concerning the same issue if rendered by a competent court, and res judicata applies to subsequent stages of the same proceedings. 
• Govindammal v. Vaidiyanathan (2017): Three conditions that are necessary to be fulfilled in applying the principle of res judicata between the co-defendants were laid down this case as:  
  • There must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants;  
  • There is necessity to decide the said conflict to give relief to the plaintiff; and  
  • There is a final decision adjudicating the said conflict. 
• Tarini Charan Bhattacharya v. Kedar Nath Haldar (1928) : The Calcutta High Court ruled that whether a decision is correct or erroneous has no bearing on its operation as res judicata, and Section 11 CPC makes court decisions conclusive between parties regardless of the reasoning employed.