28 August 2025 Legal Updates

ORDER XXI RULE 102 CPC BAR NOT APPLICABLE TO PARTY WHO PURCHASED SUIT PROPERTY NOT FROM JUDGMENT-DEBTOR: SUPREME COURT 

(a) Case Title:

• Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar & Ors. 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 6, 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta 

Facts

Mrs. Maria Eduardo Apolina Gonsalves Misquita originally owned a property. Part of the property was leased to Madan Waman Chodankar (respondent) in 1977. Chodankar entered into partnership with Maliks and sub-let the property to them. 

Property Sale Chain:

• Mrs. Misquita sold property to M/s. Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (1988) and Rizvi Estate in turn sold the property to Tahir V. Isani (appellant) in 2007 
• Chodankar filed suit against Maliks for partnership dissolution and eviction, obtaining decree in 2008. During decree execution, Isani objected under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 

Key Legal Issue

Whether a person who purchases property from someone other than the judgment-debtor during the pendency of a suit can raise objections under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against decree execution, or is barred by Rule 102 (transferee pendente lite provision). 

Legal Provisions Involved

1. Order XXI Rule 97:

Resistance to possession of immovable property 

2. Order XXI Rule 101:

Questions to be determined in execution proceedings 

3. Order XXI Rule 102:

Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite 

4. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act:

Doctrine of lis pendens 

Court's Decision

Supreme Court ALLOWED the appeal and held that Rule 102 doesn't apply to Isani because: 

• He did not trace his title from the judgment-debtor (Maliks) 
• He purchased from M/s. Rizvi Estate, who were not parties to the original suit 
• Rizvi Estate derived title from original owner, not from judgment-debtor 

1. Doctrine of Lis Pendens:

Only applies when transfer is made by or through the judgment-debtor 

2. Bona Fide Purchaser:

Isani was entitled to raise objections as he was a genuine buyer from a third party 

Key Legal Principles

1. Transferee Pendente Lite:

Rule 102 only bars those who derive title from judgment-debtor during suit pendency 

2. Third Party Rights:

Genuine purchasers from non-parties to litigation retain right to object 

3. Finality of Decrees:

Courts must balance decree-holder rights with third party interests 

4. Procedural Fairness:

Belated applications (after 10 years) show mala fide intent 

CRIMINAL COURTS CANNOT RECALL OR REVIEW THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS EXCEPT FOR CLERICAL OR ARITHMETICAL ERRORS: SUPREME COURT REITERATES 

(a) Case Title:

• Vikram Bakshi and Others vs. R.P. Khosla and Another 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 20, 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih 

Brief Facts

Two business groups - the Khosla Group and the Bakshi Group - entered into a joint venture for developing a resort in Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh. Due to disputes, multiple legal proceedings arose, including company petitions and applications for prosecution under Section 340 CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) for alleged perjury and forgery of company meeting minutes. 

Legal Issue

Whether a criminal court can review or recall its order passed in proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, particularly when such review is sought under provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. 

Key Legal Principles Established

1. Section 362 CrPC - Finality of Criminal Orders 

• Criminal courts cannot alter or review their judgments except to correct clerical/arithmetical errors 
• Courts become functus officio (having no further authority) once judgment is signed 
• This prohibition is complete and absolute 

2. Exceptions to Section 362 CrPC 

The Supreme Court identified limited exceptional circumstances where review is permissible: 

• Express statutory provision allowing review 
• Court lacked inherent jurisdiction 
• Fraud played upon the court 
• Court's mistake causing prejudice 
• Non-service of necessary parties not brought to notice 

Important Limitation: These exceptions apply only if the ground was not available during original proceedings. 

3. Procedural vs. Substantive Review 

• Procedural Review: Correcting palpably erroneous orders passed under misapprehension 
• Substantive Review: Correcting errors of law apparent on record (generally not permitted) 

4. Nature of Section 340 CrPC Proceedings

• Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and must be governed by CrPC provisions, not Civil Procedure Code 

Court's Decision

• Set aside the High Court's order allowing review 
• Held that review petition under CPC Order XLVII was not maintainable for Section 340 CrPC proceedings 
• Confirmed that withdrawal of company petition didn't change the binding nature of earlier Supreme Court directions 

COURTS MUST VIEW VIDEO IN OBSCENITY CASE TO VERIFY ALLEGATIONS: KERALA HIGH COURT 

(a) Case Title:

• Harikumar v. State of Kerala 

(b) Court:

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 8, 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath 

Background

This was a criminal revision petition challenging convictions under Section 292(2)(a), (c) and (d) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for possession of obscene video cassettes for sale/hire. The accused operated a video shop called 'Omega Videos and Communications' where police seized ten allegedly obscene video cassettes in December 1997. 

Court Proceedings

1. Trial Court:

Convicted the accused and sentenced him to 2 years simple imprisonment + ₹2,000 fine 

2. Sessions Court (Appeal):

Confirmed conviction but reduced sentence to 1 year imprisonment + ₹1,000 fine 

3. High Court (Revision):

Allowed the revision petition and acquitted the accused 

Key Legal Issue

Whether oral evidence from witnesses who viewed the video cassettes was sufficient to prove obscenity, or whether the trial judge must personally view the material to determine if it contains obscene content. 

Legal Principles Established

1. Test for Obscenity:

• The court traced the evolution from the restrictive "Hicklin test" to the modern "contemporary community standards test" established in cases like Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014). 

2. Evidence Requirements:

• For Section 292 IPC prosecutions involving video cassettes: 
• Video cassettes qualify as primary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act 
• The court must personally view and examine the material to determine obscenity 
• Oral evidence from other witnesses can only serve as corroboration, not as primary proof 
• Without judicial examination of the content, there is no substantive evidence to support conviction 

3. Essential Ingredients for Section 292 IPC:

• Material must be lascivious 
• Must appeal to prurient interest 
• Must tend to deprave and corrupt viewers 
• Must not fall within statutory exceptions 
• Must be judged by contemporary community standards from an average person's perspective 

Judgment

The High Court held that both lower courts erred by relying solely on witness testimony without the trial judge personally viewing the video cassettes. This constituted a fundamental defect in the evidence, making the conviction unsustainable. The revision petition was allowed, and the accused was acquitted.