CPC Amendments - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court ruled that failure to comply with Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, which mandates lawyers to inform the court about a party's death, prevents the opposing side from claiming abatement due to non-substitution of legal heirs. The Court emphasized that no party can benefit from their own wrong (nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria). It clarified that procedural lapses should not override substantive justice and remanded the case for fresh consideration, highlighting the distinction between joint and indivisible decrees in abatement cases. The judgment reinforces the duty of pleaders to ensure fair litigation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Title Suit No. 106 of 1984 filed by the appellants (Binod Pathak & others) before the Sub-Judge, Gopalganj, ...

The Supreme Court clarified the scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing that the power to recall witnesses rests solely with the court to clarify ambiguities, not to fill lacunae in a party's case. The ruling reaffirmed that such discretion must be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked by parties for re-examination or cross-examination. The Court underscored that Section 151 CPC (inherent powers) may permit witness recall in exceptional cases, but routine use is barred to prevent trial delays. The judgment aligns with precedents holding that procedural tools must aid judicial clarity, not protract litigation. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a petition filed by Shubhkaran Singh challenging two orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. The first order, dated 7 Janu...

Tag: CPC Amendments

Supreme Court Ruling :How Non-Disclosure of Death in Court Cases Can Backfire

Supreme Court Explains When Courts Can Recall Witnesses: Order 18 Rule 17 CPC