https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283337 Inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used to impose a substantive damages liability on a plaintiff at the threshold of a pending suit; a court has no authority to require an undertaking to pay damages if the suit fails merely because the claim appears weak or vexatious. By contrast, the doctrine of lis pendens may be regulated in an appropriate case under the Transfer of Property Act, and the court may permit dealings with the suit property during the suit on terms of security to protect the opposite party. The impugned damages undertaking was set aside, while the security-based exemption from lis pendens was upheld. en-us Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283337 Inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used to impose a substantive damages liability on a plaintiff at the threshold of a pending suit; a court has no authority to require an undertaking to pay damages if the suit fails merely because the claim appears weak or vexatious. By contrast, the doctrine of lis pendens may be regulated in an appropriate case under the Transfer of Property Act, and the court may permit dealings with the suit property during the suit on terms of security to protect the opposite party. The impugned damages undertaking was set aside, while the security-based exemption from lis pendens was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283337