LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Johra and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 1140Decided 3 Dec 2018
Civil Appeal Nos. 11757-11758 of 2018
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre · Justice Indu Malhotra

Background

The appellants were private respondents (Nos. 8 to 80) in a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court concerning alleged unauthorised encroachment by them on Gram Panchayat land in Sonipat. The High Court disposed of that writ petition with mandatory directions, including a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct a fact-finding inquiry and restore the land with police help, without issuing notice to or hearing the appellants, even though they were named respondents. The appellants' review petition against that order was also dismissed, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order could not stand because it was passed against the appellants without giving them any opportunity to be heard, violating the basic principle of natural justice that no order can be passed against a party to proceedings without hearing them. The Court expressly declined to examine the merits of the underlying encroachment dispute, noting it had not set out the factual contentions of either side. It allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the writ petition to its original number before the High Court, directing that it be decided afresh after hearing all parties, and, given the land dispute's scale, within six months without allowing adjournments.

Lesson Learnt

A court order that affects a named party to a case is not valid if that party was never given a chance to be heard, regardless of how pressing the underlying issue (such as an encroachment or land dispute) may seem; natural justice requires notice and a hearing before adverse directions are issued against anyone named as a respondent.

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