Twice The High Court Rewrote The Decree. Twice The Supreme Court Undid It.
Two suits about an encroaching wall were decreed and affirmed. The High Court turned the decrees into an order for money nobody had asked for — and did it again after being told not to.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals again. Granting relief that was never prayed for is impermissible, and modifying decrees in second appeal without framing substantial questions of law and without entering the merits cannot stand. The second appeals, pending since 2008, were sent back to be heard on their own merits, with a request that they be taken up expeditiously.
- Relief follows the pleadings. A court cannot award compensation in place of an injunction nobody sought.
- A second appeal needs substantial questions of law, framed, before the decree below can be disturbed.
- The same error twice. The Supreme Court had already set the High Court's judgment aside once and remanded it.
- Seventeen years and counting — the appeals date from 2008 and are now to be heard afresh.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 648
- Reported
- [2026] 7 S.C.R. 187
- Case
- CIVIL APPEAL/19552/2017
- Decided
- 18 June 2026
- Outcome
- Appeals allowed; second appeals remanded for fresh consideration
What happened
The plaintiff sued for a mandatory injunction to remove an encroaching wall and the lintel of a school building erected on the wall of his house. The trial court decreed the suits, directing removal and restraining further construction, and the first appellate court affirmed.
In second appeal the High Court modified the decrees: it directed the defendants to pay compensation and to treat the wall as 'common' between the parties.
Twice over
In an earlier round the Supreme Court had set that judgment aside, holding the modification impermissible because the High Court had not entered into the merits and had framed no substantial questions of law while deciding the second appeals. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
On remand the High Court again set aside the decrees, this time directing the Executing Court along similar lines. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals again and sent the second appeals back to be decided on their own merits, noting they are of 2008 and asking that they be considered expeditiously.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a court award compensation instead of the injunction I asked for?
Not where no such relief was sought. The Supreme Court held granting relief not prayed for impermissible.
What must a High Court do before allowing a second appeal?
Frame the substantial questions of law and decide on the merits. Modifying a decree without doing so cannot be sustained.
Resisting relief nobody asked for
- Object at the hearing when the court floats a remedy outside the prayers, and have the objection recorded.
- In a second appeal, check the substantial questions of law were framed before any interference with the decree.
- Where a remand has already happened, point to the earlier order — the repetition was decisive here.
- Ask for expedition expressly where the appeal is old; the Court did so on 2008 matters.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 648, [2026] 7 S.C.R. 187, CIVIL APPEAL/19552/2017, decided 18 June 2026 by Justice Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in