No Prayer, No Compensation: Supreme Court Says Courts Cannot Create New Relief

The Supreme Court has held that a court cannot compel a litigant to accept monetary compensation when no such relief was sought in the suit, observing that doing so amounts to creating an entirely new remedy and results in a miscarriage of justice.

A Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had replaced decrees directing removal of alleged encroachments with directions to assess and pay compensation to the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. Court directed the high court to hear the second appeals afresh on their merits under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The dispute arose out of two civil suits. In one, the original plaintiff sought removal of an allegedly illegal wall constructed on a common open space beyond his house and an injunction restraining further construction. In the other, he sought removal of a lintel of a school building allegedly erected on the wall of his house. The trial court decreed both suits, directing removal of the structures, and the first appellate court affirmed those decrees.

Can a court grant compensation when none was sought?

The Supreme Court answered this in the negative.

It noted that the original plaintiff had sought only mandatory and permanent injunctions. There was no claim for damages or compensation at any stage of the proceedings. Despite this, the high court had substituted the decrees with a direction that compensation be assessed and paid to the plaintiff's legal heirs.

The bench observed that in the absence of any such prayer, the high court could not compel the legal heirs to accept monetary compensation, particularly when they had not consented to such a course.

"There was no prayer whatsoever made by the original plaintiff seeking any damages or compensation," Court noted, adding that the high court "could not have undertaken such exercise of seeking to compensate one party at the cost of the other without any prayer being made in that regard".

Why did the Supreme Court find fault with the high court's directions?

The Bench pointed out that after setting aside the trial court's decrees, the high court directed the executing court to determine the value of the offending wall and award compensation.

The Supreme Court held this approach to be legally unsustainable.

It observed that once the trial court's decrees had been set aside, there was no decree left to execute. Consequently, the executing court could not be asked to undertake an exercise of valuing the wall or awarding compensation, since such directions found no support under Order XXI of the CPC.

Court further noted that this was not the first time the high court had adopted such an approach. An earlier judgment modifying the decrees by awarding compensation had already been set aside by the Supreme Court in 2013 because the high court had failed to frame substantial questions of law while deciding the second appeals. Yet, after remand, the high court once again attempted to substitute the relief with monetary compensation.

The Bench also found that the high court proceeded on an incorrect factual premise by treating the disputed wall as a common wall, although the trial court had in fact ordered its removal. It further observed that the high court failed to properly frame substantial questions of law before reversing concurrent findings of the courts below.

Holding that the high court had effectively created a new relief never sought by the plaintiff and compelled the legal heirs to accept monetary compensation, the Supreme Court said such a course had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, Court set aside the high court's common judgment and remanded both second appeals for fresh adjudication on their own merits under Section 100 of the CPC. Noting that the second appeals have remained pending since 2008, the Bench requested the high court to dispose of them expeditiously.

Case Title: Rajat Kumar And Others Vs S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya Sadhaura And Others 

Bench: Justices S V N Bhatti and Atul S Chandurkar 

Date of Judgment: June 19, 2026