Basudev v. Sanjay Kumar

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 831Decided 11 Aug 2026
CA @ SLP (C) No.4338 of 2025
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Background

A civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming a half share in property and an injunction; the defendants raised a counterclaim asserting ownership of the entire property. The Trial Court decreed the suit and dismissed the counterclaim, and the defendants filed a single appeal (not two separate appeals) in which the suit was dismissed and the counterclaim allowed. In second appeal, the High Court held that a single appeal was not maintainable when a suit and counterclaim are disposed of by one judgment, and rejected the appeal on grounds of waiver and estoppel, relying on a prior High Court ruling that two separate appeals were required.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court surveyed a long line of conflicting High Court and Supreme Court decisions on whether one composite appeal or two separate appeals are needed when a suit and counterclaim are disposed of by a single judgment. It held that Order VIII Rules 6A-6D of the CPC treat a counterclaim as a cross-suit that is decided together with the original claim in one judgment, so a single "composite appeal" challenging both the decree in the suit and the decree in the counterclaim is legally sufficient. There is no rule in the CPC mandating two separate appeals. However, the composite appeal must separately set out the grounds against each decree and must be valued, and court fees paid, as if it were two appeals. Applying this going forward while still granting relief in this specific case, the Court set aside the High Court and First Appellate Court orders, restored the appeal, and permitted the appellant to file one additional memorandum of appeal (since only one had originally been filed) to be heard together with the existing appeal.

Lesson Learnt

When a single court judgment decides both an original suit claim and a defendant's counterclaim, a party challenging the outcome does not need to file two separate appeals: one composite appeal is enough, as long as it addresses each decree's grounds separately and the correct court fees are paid for both parts.

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
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case