This compilation indexes twelve High Court judgments decided between 30 July 2026 and 13 August 2026, each filed as a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The rulings span the Gujarat, Delhi, Madras, Patna, Tripura, Telangana, and Chhattisgarh High Courts and arise from a variety of civil disputes — including property possession, tenancy recovery, specific performance of contract, succession, and municipal compensation matters. The compilation is intended for civil litigation researchers, law firm associates, and legal professionals who track appellate civil procedure jurisprudence across Indian High Courts.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference compiled from publicly available court records. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, and readers should verify every ruling against the full authoritative judgment before relying on it for any purpose.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such court. The provision covers decrees passed ex parte as well as those passed after contest, and it is the foundational procedural gateway through which an unsuccessful party before a trial court or court of first instance may challenge the legality and propriety of a judgment and decree before the appropriate appellate High Court. The section is typically read with Order XLI of the CPC, which governs the procedural requirements for filing, admission, and hearing of first appeals.

The 12 rulings

1. Ahmedabd Municipal Corp vs Mahendra Sudhakar Pasi

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 13 August 2026
Sections engaged: 65, 67, 68, 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Gujarat High Court as First Appeal Nos. 2927–2930 of 2004, challenging the common judgment and decree dated 07.11.2002 passed by the City Civil Court No. 18, Ahmedabad in Civil Suits Nos. 145 to 148 of 1997, which were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Per the source preview, the appellant is the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, and the judgment was reserved on 09.07.2026 and pronounced on 13.08.2026; the appeal was approved for reporting.

2. Rajendrasinh Gyansinh Bhardwaj vs Sugam Construction -Pvt Ltd

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 10 August 2026
Sections engaged: 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal was filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the unsuccessful plaintiff questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 12 of 2001 by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, by which the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs to be paid to the defendants. Per the source preview, the appeal is registered as First Appeal No. 3078 of 2013 and was not approved for reporting.

3. Maninder Kaur @ Meenu @ Munni vs Vinod Bala

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 10 August 2026
Sections engaged: 151, 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Regular First Appeal was filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, registered as RFA 807/2026, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2026 whereby a civil suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for possession and recovery of Rs. 7,60,000/- as arrears of rent and user and occupation charges had been decreed. Per the source preview, the plaintiff/respondent was the owner of the property at H.No. IX/929, Prem Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, and the original suit was Civil Suit No. 291/2020.

4. G.R. Thangavelu vs Mrs. G.R. Indira (Died)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 10 August 2026
Sections engaged: 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal suit was filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, registered as A.S. No. 660 of 2016, challenging the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 529 of 2004 dated 05.10.2016 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Per the source preview, the matter involves multiple respondents, with the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent brought on record vide court order dated 06.01.2026 in CMP Nos. 6170, 6172, and 6174 of 2023; the judgment was reserved on 30.07.2026 and pronounced on 10.08.2026.

5. Shri Ramesh Chandra Purbey vs Mukti Narain Singh

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 7 August 2026
Sections engaged: 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Patna as First Appeal No. 13 of 2009 by the defendant first party (the legal representatives of the late Ramesh Chandra Purbey, including his daughter Madhuri Kumari and sons Rambeer Kumar, Randheer Kumar Purbey, and Sudhir Kumar Purbey) against the plaintiffs-respondents. Per the source preview, the appeal is a civil first appeal and the full substantive ground is not elaborated in the available preview text.

6. David Arul vs Michael Arul

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 7 August 2026
Sections engaged: 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal suit was filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, registered as A.S. No. 550 of 2023, seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned XVI court (per source preview). The matter involves multiple respondents including M/s. Temple Financial Consultants Private Limited, Advent Computer Services Ltd., and Tecways India Pvt. Ltd.; the cause title was amended per court orders dated 18.12.2024 and 02.06.2026. The judgment was reserved on 29.07.2026 and pronounced on 07.08.2026.

7. S.Subramaniyam(Died) vs Ct.S.Chidambaram (Died)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 53A, 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal is registered as A.S. Nos. 37, 33 and 172 of 2013 before the Madras High Court. Per the source preview, both the original sole appellant in A.S. No. 37 of 2013 (S. Subramaniyam) and the original first respondent (Ct. S. Chidambaram) are deceased, with their respective legal representatives brought on record by subsequent court orders; the cause title in A.S. No. 37 of 2013 was also amended vide court order dated 04.12.2024. The substantive ground in the source preview does not elaborate on the specific dispute beyond the procedural substitution of parties and the consolidation of multiple appeal suits.

8. Kailash Chand & Anr vs Prem Chand & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 4 August 2026
Sections engaged: 276, 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal is registered as RFA 73/2025 before the Delhi High Court, with the judgment reserved on 20.04.2026 and pronounced on 04.08.2026. Per the source preview, a substantive issue in the matter relates to whether the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, indicating the appeal arises from a testamentary or succession-related civil dispute. The appeal was filed against a trial court judgment by the appellants Kailash Chand and Jagdish Prasad, both residents of Shahdara, Delhi.

9. Smt. Horo Priya Sarkar vs Smt. Kanchana Sarkar

Bench: Tripura High Court
Date: 3 August 2026
Sections engaged: 100, 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter is registered as RSA No. 40 of 2023 before the High Court of Tripura at Agartala and is a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, 1908, challenging the judgment dated 05.08.2023 and decree dated 11.08.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in Title Appeal No. 02 of 2021. Per the source preview, the date of hearing was 09.07.2026 and the judgment and order were delivered on 03.08.2026; the matter was found fit for reporting.

10. I.Susheela vs M/S.Sri Devi Enterprises

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 31 July 2026
Sections engaged: 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal is registered as CCCA No. 79 of 2019 before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Per the source preview, the matter involves disputes relating to multiple scheduled properties (Suit Schedule A, B, C, and D properties) described by their boundary particulars, indicating a civil suit concerning immovable property. The full substantive ground is not elaborated in the available preview text.

11. Rajinder Kumar vs Sewa Ram (Since Deceased) Thr His Lrs &

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 31 July 2026
Sections engaged: 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed as RFA 908/2017 before the Delhi High Court, challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 29th August, 2017 passed by the Additional District Judge-09 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 613977/2016 (Old No. 167/2011) titled 'Shri Sewa Ram v. Shri Rajinder Kumar & Anr.' Per the source preview, the Civil Judge had issued a direction to the original plaintiff with regard to issue no. 5; the judgment was reserved on 21.05.2026 and pronounced on 31.07.2026.

12. Santosh Kumar Baghel vs Jaijai Ram Swarnakar

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 30 July 2026
Sections engaged: 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is registered as FA No. 532 of 2017 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur and was filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2017 passed in Civil Suit No. 3A/2013, by which the learned District Judge, Mungeli dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for grant of a decree of specific performance of contract. Per the source preview, the plaintiff/appellant, Santosh Kumar Baghel, had filed a suit seeking specific performance, and the appeal challenges the dismissal of that suit.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 96 as a universal appellate gateway. Across all twelve rulings, Section 96 of the CPC functions as the foundational procedural provision through which unsuccessful parties challenge trial court or lower appellate court judgments. The section appears either alone or in combination with allied provisions (such as Order XLI, Section 151, or Section 100 of the CPC) in every single case in this compilation.
Geographic spread of High Courts. The rulings in this set span seven different High Courts — Gujarat, Delhi, Madras, Patna, Tripura, Telangana, and Chhattisgarh — reflecting the PAN-India applicability of Section 96 CPC and the procedurally uniform basis on which first appeals are filed across jurisdictions.
Recurring subject matter of property and possession disputes. Several cases in this compilation — including those from the Delhi High Court, Telangana High Court, and Madras High Court — arise from civil suits involving immovable property, possession, tenancy arrears, or boundaries of scheduled properties, indicating that civil appeals under Section 96 in this period cluster heavily around property-related trial court decrees.
Substitution of deceased parties as a recurring procedural feature. At least two matters in this compilation (case 4 and case 7) involve the formal substitution of deceased original parties with their legal representatives through subsequent court orders, illustrating a recurring procedural complexity in long-pending first appeals where parties pass away during the pendency of proceedings.
Outcomes not determinable from source previews. Across all twelve cases, the outcome direction is recorded as "Outcome not specified in source," which reflects that the source previews available at the time of compilation are primarily procedural or case-introduction extracts rather than the operative paragraphs of the judgments. Researchers should access the full judgments directly to determine the final orders passed in each matter.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is structured as a research index, not a digest of holdings. Each entry provides the identity of the parties, the court and bench, the date of judgment, the sections engaged, and a brief procedural note drawn from the available source preview. Because the outcome field is recorded as "Outcome not specified in source" for all twelve cases, researchers must retrieve the full judgment from the relevant High Court portal or from indiankanoon.org to ascertain the operative order, the ratio of the decision, and any directions issued by the court.

Before relying on any ruling listed here for litigation strategy or academic citation, researchers should verify whether the judgment has been stayed by a superior court, whether a Special Leave Petition or Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging it, and whether any subsequent CBDT or CBIC instructions (where relevant) may affect the legal position. The date of each judgment should also be checked against the effective date of any legislative amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure or allied statutes that may have altered the applicable procedural framework.

Users working on jurisdictional research should note that while Section 96 CPC is a uniform central provision, each High Court exercises its appellate jurisdiction subject to its own original side rules, Letters Patent, and High Court rules. Procedural timelines, fee structures, and admission thresholds may vary materially across the Gujarat, Delhi, Madras, Patna, Tripura, Telangana, and Chhattisgarh High Courts whose rulings are indexed here. Cross-referencing with the relevant court's procedural rules is recommended before drawing conclusions about procedural uniformity from this set of rulings.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 96 CPC First Appeals: 12 High Court Rulings (2026)