Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Civil ProcedureSupreme Court of India

Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. LRs. vs Prithvi Raj Singh

Not available · 2024 INSC 1030Decided 20 Dec 2024
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Background

The respondent's grandfather had filed a civil suit in 1988 against the appellant seeking to declare a sale deed void for fraud. An ex parte decree was passed against the appellant in 1994. The appellant applied to have that ex parte decree set aside and the suit restored; the trial court allowed this, but the respondent's revision succeeded before the District Court, and the Allahabad High Court upheld the District Court's view that the restoration application was defective for not separately seeking condonation of delay.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court took an overly technical view. Since the appellant's restoration application itself explained the reasons for delay, a separate formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not mandatory: procedure is meant to serve justice, not obstruct it. The Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the trial court's order allowing restoration, and directed the trial court to expedite the decades-old suit and try to decide it within a year.

Lesson Learnt

Courts should not reject a genuine application on hyper-technical procedural grounds when the substance of the required explanation (such as reasons for delay) is already present in the record: procedure is meant to be the servant of justice, not its master.

Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. LRs. vs Prithvi Raj Singh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware