LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Shree Chaitanya Constructions v. Sudhir Poonamchand Parakh & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 773Decided 17 Jul 2019
Civil Appeal No. 5620 of 2019
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman · Justice Sanjiv Khanna · Justice Surya Kant

Background

In a specific performance suit filed by the appellant-purchaser against several family members who owned a property, only one defendant (Respondent No. 1) filed a written statement; the trial court denied specific performance and ordered a refund instead. On appeal, the High Court heard arguments from counsel for Respondent No. 1 and reversed the trial court, decreeing specific performance in the purchaser's favour. Respondent No. 1 then filed a review petition claiming he had never actually appointed the counsel who argued on his behalf (no written Vakalatnama existed), and the High Court recalled its own judgment and restored the appeal for fresh hearing on this ground.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the facts and found strong evidence, including affidavits from family members, that Respondent No. 1 had in fact authorised the lawyers to represent him, notwithstanding the missing written Vakalatnama; the absence of a formal Vakalatnama was, at most, a curable irregularity rather than proof that he was unrepresented. The Court also found that the additional argument Respondent No. 1 claimed was missed (regarding an injunction in a separate partition suit) had actually been considered in the original High Court judgment. Concluding that the result of the appeal would have been the same even accepting Respondent No. 1's version, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's recall order and restored the original judgment decreeing specific performance.

Lesson Learnt

A court will not reopen a final judgment merely because a formal procedural document (like a Vakalatnama) is missing, if the surrounding evidence shows the party was in substance represented and would have lost the case regardless: review/recall powers are meant to correct real injustice, not technical irregularities with no effect on the outcome.

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