LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Hameed Kunju v. Nazim

Civil Appeal · 2017 INSC 623Decided 17 Jul 2017
Civil Appeal No. 9151 of 2017
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre · Justice R. Banumathi

Background

A landlord in Kerala sought eviction of a tenant occupying one of eight shops, a dispute that dragged on for roughly 11 years through multiple rounds of trial court orders, dismissals for default, restorations, and appeals. After the eviction order was finally passed and executed, with the landlord taking possession with police help, the tenant filed a batch of applications to reopen the matter and separately moved the Kerala High Court under Article 227, which quashed four orders of the trial/executing court and remanded the case for a fresh inquiry and possible retrial.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the landlord's appeal and set aside the High Court's order, holding that the High Court should never have entertained the Article 227 writ petition in the first place because an ordinary appellate remedy was available and had, in fact, already been used by the tenant in an earlier round. The Court found that the tenant was effectively acting as a "professional litigant" who exploited procedural gaps to keep the case alive for a decade after having full knowledge of, and opportunity to contest, the proceedings. Since the eviction decree had already been executed and possession delivered, there was no live dispute left for the High Court to supervise, and its directions effectively usurped the trial court's own discretion. The Court restored the eviction order and awarded Rs. 25,000 in costs against the tenant.

Lesson Learnt

A High Court's supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is not a substitute for an ordinary appeal, especially once a decree has already been executed; courts should be alert to litigants who misuse repeated applications and writs purely to prolong possession rather than to raise a genuine grievance.

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

More rulings in Civil Procedure

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