LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Mohd. Sahid & Others v. Raziya Khanam (D) Thr. LRs & Anr.

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 949Decided 10 Oct 2018
Civil Appeal No. 10379 of 2018
Justice R. Banumathi · Justice Indira Banerjee

Background

Raziya Khanam had filed a 1979 civil suit to cancel two sale deeds she alleged were forged, and for a permanent injunction over the suit land. After a long and chequered procedural history, including an earlier ex-parte decree that was set aside and remanded, and a writ petition that stayed proceedings for nearly 15 years, the appellants (defendants) again failed to appear despite having notice, and the suit was decreed ex-parte against them in 2012. They then sought condonation of a 349-day delay in filing their appeal, claiming they only learned of the 2012 decree in May 2013 from a police constable.

Decision Breakdown

Both the First Appellate Court and the Allahabad High Court had concurrently found, based on contemporaneous trial-court order sheets, that the appellants were actually present in court in October 2011 and had full knowledge of the ongoing suit and of the dismissal of their earlier writ petition, making their claimed "first knowledge" story in May 2013 false. The Supreme Court examined the record itself, found the appellants' delay-condonation application contained incorrect and contradictory averments (including evidence they knew of the decree as early as November 2012), and held there was no perversity or illegality in the High Court's refusal to condone the delay. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not condone delay in filing an appeal where the explanation given is found to be factually false or contradicted by the court's own record: litigants must be truthful and diligent, since a dishonest excuse for delay can be fatal to an otherwise valid appeal.

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