Ramji Singh Patel v. Gyan Chandra Jaiswal

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 23Decided 11 Jan 2018
Civil Appeal Nos. 1799-1800 of 2018
Justice A.K. Sikri · Justice Ashok Bhushan

Background

The appellant, a practising advocate, lived next door to the respondent, who ran a flour mill, oil mill and ice factory from his own residential premises. After the respondent installed a diesel generator set in 2003, the appellant complained that the resulting vibration cracked his house's walls and that the noise and air pollution harmed his family's health and disrupted his legal practice from home. Both parties filed competing civil suits for injunctions, and while the appellant's suit succeeded before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the High Court of Allahabad reversed this in a second appeal, holding (among other things) that the appellant's suit was time-barred because the mill's operations had actually begun back in 1990.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred procedurally by entertaining a limitation plea for the first time in a second appeal, since no such issue had been raised or framed as a pure question of law at trial: it was, at best, a mixed question of law and fact that could not be raised that late. On the merits, the Court also found the High Court's reasoning flawed: the real cause of nuisance was the diesel generator set installed only in 2003, making the 2004 suit timely, and the lower courts' factual findings that the generator caused wall cracks and health-damaging pollution meant the nuisance was a continuing wrong, not a stale one. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the decree in the appellant's favour, with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

A plea of limitation that depends on disputed facts (a "mixed question of law and fact") generally cannot be raised for the first time in a second appeal if it was never raised or framed as an issue at trial; and nuisance caused by an ongoing activity (like continuous noise or pollution from machinery) is treated as a continuing wrong, so the limitation period runs from when that specific activity started, not from some earlier, unrelated point in time.

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