⚖ Ready-to-Use Case Law Paragraphs for Civil Judgments

1️⃣ Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint

Model Paragraph

While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to examine only the averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defence raised by the defendant cannot be looked into at this stage. If from a meaningful reading of the plaint it appears that the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint is liable to be rejected. In this regard reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557 and T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, wherein it is held that frivolous or vexatious litigation should be nipped in the bud and the court must reject such plaint when the conditions of Order VII Rule 11 are satisfied.

2️⃣ Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2

Model Paragraph

The grant of temporary injunction is governed by well-settled principles. The plaintiff must establish (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience in his favour, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. Unless all these three requirements are satisfied, the court should not grant interim relief. The Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 has reiterated that a mere triable issue is not sufficient and the court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried and that the comparative hardship justifies grant of injunction.

3️⃣ Appellate Interference in Injunction Orders

Model Paragraph

The appellate court ordinarily does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court while granting or refusing temporary injunction unless such discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. This principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd v. Antox India Pvt Ltd 1990 Supp SCC 727, wherein it is held that the appellate court should not reassess the material to reach a different conclusion merely because another view is possible.

4️⃣ Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness

Model Paragraph

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree. Such readiness and willingness is a mandatory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao (1995) 5 SCC 115 has held that the conduct of the plaintiff must demonstrate that he was always ready and willing to perform his obligations under the agreement.

5️⃣ Delay in Specific Performance

Model Paragraph

Relief of specific performance is discretionary and equitable in nature. Unreasonable delay in approaching the court may disentitle the plaintiff from obtaining such relief even when the suit is filed within limitation. In this regard the Supreme Court in K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC 1 has observed that courts should take into account escalation of property prices and delay in performance while deciding whether specific performance should be granted.

6️⃣ Possession and Nature of Suit

Model Paragraph

The nature of the suit depends upon the status of possession of the plaintiff and existence of title dispute. The Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 has explained that where the plaintiff is in lawful possession and title is not seriously disputed, a simple suit for injunction is maintainable; however, where title is disputed or the plaintiff is not in possession, the appropriate remedy would be a suit for declaration and possession.

7️⃣ Protection of Possession

Model Paragraph

Possession is protected by law even against the true owner unless dispossession is carried out through due process of law. The Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769 held that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed forcibly and must be evicted only through legal procedure.

8️⃣ Mutation Entries and Title

Model Paragraph

It is well settled that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer or extinguish title over property. They are maintained only for fiscal purposes. The Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137 has clarified that ownership must be established through legally admissible evidence and not merely on the basis of mutation entries.

9️⃣ Agreement to Sell and Transfer of Ownership

Model Paragraph

An agreement to sell does not by itself create any right or interest in immovable property. Transfer of ownership can take place only through a registered sale deed. The Supreme Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam (1977) 3 SCC 247 has reiterated that an agreement to sell merely gives a right to seek specific performance.

🔟 Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings

Model Paragraph

Fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings and any decree obtained by practicing fraud upon the court is a nullity in the eyes of law. The Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 has held that a litigant who approaches the court must come with clean hands and suppression of material facts amounts to fraud on the court.

1️⃣1️⃣ Easement – Right of Way

Model Paragraph

An easement of necessity arises when a property becomes landlocked and cannot be enjoyed without access through another property. Such right continues only so long as the necessity exists. Courts must carefully examine whether the alleged necessity is genuine. The principles governing easement rights are contained in the Easements Act and have been recognized in several judicial precedents dealing with right of way disputes.

1️⃣2️⃣ Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law

Model Paragraph

The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC is confined only to cases involving substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below cannot ordinarily be interfered with. The Supreme Court in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 has clarified the meaning and scope of “substantial question of law”.

✅ These paragraphs are commonly used in civil judgments for:

• Order 7 Rule 11 applications

• Temporary injunction orders

• Specific performance suits

• Possession disputes

• Easement cases