Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Case Overview Case Title: Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 672 Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice B.V. Nagarathna Background This matter arose from a dispute over a sale agreement executed on 17 August 2015 concerning immovable property. The appellant initiated a suit for specific performance after the respondent failed to execute the sale deed. During the suit’s pendency, the property was sold to a third party. The defendants, after initially participating, ceased to appear, resulting in an ex parte decree. Execution proceedings followed, leading to the appellant obtaining the sale deed through court intervention. The respondents subsequently filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to set aside the ex parte decree, accompanied by petitions for condonation of substantial delays (712 and 467 days). The trial court allowed these, but the High Court reversed the decisi...

The Caveat Mechanism: A Preemptive Legal Safeguard in Maharashtra's Judicial Framework By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In the realm of civil litigation within Maharashtra's judicial system, the caveat petition stands as a critical preemptive legal instrument. This procedural mechanism, enshrined under Section 148A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, functions as a judicial forewarning system, ensuring procedural fairness and preventing ex-parte orders against the caveator. Legal Foundation and Purpose The caveat petition emerges from the cardinal principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), a cornerstone of natural justice. Its primary function is to notify the judicial authority that the caveator anticipates litigation and requests judicial restraint against passing orders without providing an opportunity for representation. This procedural safeguard is particularly vital in civil and property disputes where ex-parte injunctions could otherwise create irreparable...

  Supreme Court Upholds Liability for Disobedience of Injunction Orders Even After Their Setting Aside By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a significant ruling, the  Supreme Court of India  has clarified that the  subsequent setting aside of an injunction order  does not absolve a party from liability for  disobedience  committed during the pendency of such an order. The bench comprising  Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol  delivered this judgment in the context of  Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) , which provides the mechanism for taking action against parties who violate injunction orders or other orders issued under  Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC . Background of the Case The case arose from a dispute involving a  Joint Development Agreement (JDA)  dated  30th April 2004 , where the respondents (original plaintiffs) sought the revocation of the agreement due to alleged non-compliance by the appe...