The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot impose compensation without prayer for relief in a civil dispute. It set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that replaced decrees for removal of encroachment with monetary compensation. Further, the Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment on June 19, 2026.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from two civil suits filed by Om Parkash, now represented by his legal heirs. He sought removal of alleged encroachments on a common open space and a permanent injunction against further construction.
Initially, the Trial Court allowed both suits and ordered removal of the encroachment. Subsequently, the first appellate court upheld these decrees.
However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court modified the decrees in second appeals. As a result, it directed payment of money instead of removal of the structures.
Earlier Supreme Court Intervention
Earlier, the legal heirs challenged the High Court’s decision. In 2013, the Supreme Court set aside that judgment. Notably, it found that the High Court had failed to frame substantial questions of law properly.
Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
High Court Decision After Remand
After remand, the High Court again altered the nature of relief. It treated the encroachment as compensable and ordered valuation of the structure.
Thereafter, it directed the defendants to deposit the assessed amount. Consequently, it also set aside the earlier decrees in favour of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court Findings
Importantly, the Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning. It observed that the plaintiff never claimed compensation or damages in the suit.
Moreover, the Court held that courts cannot grant relief beyond pleadings. Therefore, civil courts must remain within the scope of the case presented by parties.
In addition, the Bench noted that the High Court effectively created a new remedy without legal basis. This approach, it said, resulted in a serious procedural error.
Furthermore, the Court criticised the direction issued to the Executing Court. It held that once the decrees were set aside, no executable order remained in force.
Similarly, the Bench pointed out that the High Court misread the trial court record. It also failed to properly frame substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC.
Ultimately, the Court reiterated that a High Court cannot impose compensation without prayer for relief. Consequently, it held that the High Court’s approach resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. It set aside the High Court judgment dated May 2, 2016.
Finally, it remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration under Section 100 CPC. It also directed expeditious disposal of the appeals.
The civil appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
