LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Akhilesh Singh @ Akhileshwar Singh v. Lal Babu Singh & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 184Decided 21 Feb 2018
Civil Appeal No. 2108 of 2018
Justice A.K. Sikri · Justice Ashok Bhushan

Background

A partition suit filed in 1973 over joint family property was decreed in the plaintiffs' favour by the trial court in 1976. The defendants' First Appeal remained pending in the Patna High Court for over 40 years, during which they filed several applications to bring additional evidence (sale deeds) on record. In 2017, the High Court, on a day when no one appeared for the plaintiffs (respondents in that appeal), admitted this additional evidence and, on the very same day, used it to allow the appeal and dismiss the original partition suit, without giving the plaintiffs any chance to respond to the new evidence.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that whenever an appellate court admits additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the party against whom that evidence is used must be given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal or otherwise explain it: a principle it traced to earlier precedents including Land Acquisition Officer v. H. Narayanaiah and Shalimar Chemical Works v. Surendra Oil. Because the High Court had admitted the additional evidence and decided the appeal in the very same breath, without affording that opportunity, its judgment could not stand. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and decree, and remanded the case for the High Court to decide the appeal afresh after giving the plaintiffs a chance to rebut the additional evidence: expressly refraining from commenting on the actual merits of the partition dispute itself.

Lesson Learnt

Even late in a decades-old case, and even where the other side failed to show up in court, basic fairness requires giving a litigant the chance to respond to new evidence before it is used against them: a court cannot admit evidence and rule on its basis in the same stroke.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSupreme Court of India

Haramani Sahoo & Ors. v. Lalita Nayak & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the appellants had exercised due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, since the relevant facts about the later sale only came to their knowledge during the suit. While acknowledging the considerable delay in seeking the amendment and the inconvenience this could cause the other side, the Court set aside the trial court's and High Court's orders refusing the amendment, and allowed it subject to the appellants paying Rs. 25,000 in costs to the contesting respondents. All underlying questions of limitation, maintainability, and the merits of the parties' claims were left open for the trial court to decide.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case