In a significant judgment delivered on 19 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India reiterated a fundamental principle of civil procedure: courts cannot compel a party to accept compensation when such relief was never sought in the suit. The ruling came in Rajat Kumar & Others v. S.D. Adarsh Jain Kanya Mahavidyalaya & Others and highlights the limits of judicial discretion in second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from two civil suits filed by Om Parkash against a school management. In the first suit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had illegally constructed a wall on a common open space, obstructing air, light, and water flow. He sought a mandatory injunction directing removal of the encroachment.
In the second suit, the plaintiff challenged the construction of a lintel of the school building resting on the wall of his house. He again sought a mandatory injunction for its removal.
The Trial Court decreed both suits in favour of the plaintiff, directing removal of the offending structures. These findings were subsequently affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
What the High Court Did
When the matter reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court in second appeal, the Court altered the relief granted by the lower courts. Instead of directing removal of the structures, it attempted to resolve the dispute through monetary compensation. On remand, the High Court directed the Executing Court to assess the value of the construction and compensate the plaintiff’s legal heirs accordingly.
Observations
The Supreme Court found this approach legally unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the original plaintiff had never sought compensation or damages. His claim was limited to removal of encroachments and protection of his property rights.
The Court observed that a judicial forum cannot substitute the relief claimed by a litigant with an entirely different remedy without consent. Compelling the legal heirs to accept money instead of enforcing the decree amounted to rewriting the suit itself.
The Supreme Court also noted that once the decree for mandatory injunction was set aside, the Executing Court could not be directed to undertake valuation proceedings, as there was no executable decree remaining in force. Such directions were found to be beyond the framework of Order XXI CPC.
Conclusion
The judgment reinforces two important principles: first, courts must adjudicate disputes within the boundaries of the reliefs sought by the parties; second, second appeals under Section 100 CPC can only be decided on substantial questions of law. Judicial creativity cannot replace statutory limitations.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
This decision serves as an important reminder that property rights and procedural safeguards cannot be overridden merely in the name of equitable settlement.