A PAPER ON SPECIAL SUITS FOR THE DEGREE OF T.Y.L.L.B.

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

(THROUGH UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI)

SUBMITTED BY PRACHI RATHOD

(ROLL NO. 2223342)

SUBJECT TEACHER: Ms. RAJANI

LALA LAJATPATRAI COLLEGE OF LAW (LLC)
MUMBAI
AUGUST 2022

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

1|Page
 SR.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

2|Page
 1 Introduction 3
2 Suits By Or Against The Government 5
3 Analysis 6

4 Order Xxvii 9

5 Comments And Suggestions 10

6 Suits By Or Against Minor Or Lunatics 8

7 Concept Of Next Friend/ Guardian: 13

8 Duty To Act In Best Interest Of Minor: 10

9 When Minor Attains Majority 15

10 Suits By Or Against Corporation: 16

11 Formats 18

12 Suits By Or Against Indigent Persons 19

13 Who Is An Indigent Person? 20

14 Legal Representative As An Indigent 22

15 Interpleader Suit 26

16 Interpleader Suit And Its Condition 28

17 29
Difference Between Interpleader Suit And Impleader Suit

18 Plaint In An Interpleader Suit 30

19 Case Law: 32

20 Interpleader Suit Format 35

21 Interpleader Suit In The Usa 36

22 Conclusion 37

23 References: 38

INDEX

INTRODUCTION

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

3|Page
It is generally seen that the procedure which is laid down for all suits are same and uniform.
But there also exists certain suits which have different kind of circumstantial arrangement
and calls for specific kind of procedure. These bring the requirement for procedure laid down
for special suits. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for such procedure under provisions
laid down in sections 79 to 93 along with Order XXVII to XXXVII.

Basically special suits can be of various kinds. Dealing with suits which are instituted by or
against Government, public or state is within itself a horrendous task. It has been provided
that for such a suit against the government a notice shall be served having a limitation period
of two months. While the procedure for a suit to be instituted by the Government, the plaint
or written statement shall be signed by any person appointed by the Government to do so. But
it is also to be kept in mind that such a suit to be instituted against a Peron appointed under
Government must be working under his official capacity when such cause of action arose.

Where as a suit which is instituted or filed against an alien also calls for a special procedure.
Alien enemies, who are residing in India with the permission of the Central Government, and
alien friends, may sue in any court otherwise competent to try a suit, as if they were citizens
of India. It is also provided under section 83 that Alien enemies residing in India without
such permission or residing in a foreign country, cannot sue in any court. One the contrary, in
case of a suit by or against foreign rulers, ambassadors and envoys, it is provided that a
foreign state may sue in any competent court, provided that such suit is for the enforcement
for a private right vested in the ruler of that state or in any office of such state in his public
capacity.

In the case of any suit by or against the Ruler of any former Indian state which is based
wholly or partly upon a cause of action which arose before the commencement of
Constitution the same can be filed in accordance with the provisions in relation to the suits by
or against foreign Rulers, ambassador and envoys as provided under Section 87-B. In case of
any soldier, sailor or airman, if any of them is a party to a suit who is in actual service, and is
unable to obtain leave for prosecuting or defending the suit in personam, he may authorise
any person to sue or defend him.

In case of a suit by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on
behalf of the corporation by the secretary, or any director or other principal officer of the
corporation who   would able to despose the facts of the case and the court may at any stage
of the suit shall require the personal appearance of any of the officers who may be able to
answer the material questions relating to the suit.

In suits between strangers and persons beneficially interested in the property vested in
trustees, executors or administrators, it is not necessary to join the beneficiaries as parties to
the suit. Therefore, they can be presented by trustees, executors and beneficiaries as the case
may be. It has also been provided that the court has discretion, if it thinks fit, to order all or
any of the beneficiaries to join as parties to the suit.

The most important provisions as are laid down for suit by or against minors and lunatic are
provided under Order XXXII. These provisions are similar to each other. It is provided that
every sit by minor should be instituted in his name through his guardian or his next friend. In
case, if such a procedure is not followed then the plaint will be taken off the file. While in
case where the suit is instituted against a minor, the court should appoint a guardian ad litem
to defend the suit. In regard to appointment of a guardian of a minor or lunatic person, it has
SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

4|Page
been observed that any person who has attained the age of majority and is of sound mind may
act as a guardian or next friend which a proviso that his interest is not diverse to that of minor
t the same time who is not the opposite party in the suit. While the prerequisite is that his
consent must be obtained in writing to act as a guardian or a next friend.

Suit by indigent person who is also called as pauper are provided under Order XXXIII. The
requirement of this provisions were realised to solve mainly three intents including protection
of bonafide claims of an indigent person, safeguarding interests of revenue and lastly, for the
protection of defendant against harassment.

The suits wherein the real dispute is not between a plaintiff and a defendant but between the
defendants who interplead against each other are known as inter pleader suits. The procedure
for the same has been laid down under section 88. There are also suits concerning family
matters which are peculiar in nature itself because the court always intents to reach towards
an amicable settlement under Order XXXII-A.

Other special suits are suits relating to constitutional validity of statutory instrument under
Order XXVII-A which provides for notice to attorney General of India. Mortgage suits under
Order XXXIV provide suits for foreclosure, sale and redemption. Summary suits are also
considered special suits and are based on negotiable instruments or where the plaintiff seeks
to recover debt or liquidated amount. Section 91 provides for suits relating to public nuisance
which calls for suits which affects the public at large. There are many suits of special nature
but the paramount consideration must be taken by court in identifying such nature and
likewise take the effect, which shall serve the interest of justice.

SUITS BY OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT 

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

5|Page
The purpose behind this section is to give an opportunity to public officers and the
government so that they consider the claim of the plaintiff if it is found to be proper and just.
The provisions do not deal with rights and liabilities that are enforceable by or against the
government, they merely prescribe the procedure. No suit shall be instituted against public
officer or government for the acts done in their official capacity, until two months has expired
after serving the notice or the notice is being left at their place[1]. If the suit is to be brought
against the government, the notice should be served in all the cases and for the public officers
is to be served only when the suit pertains to the acts done while discharging their official
duty.
The notice must include essential details such as – the name of the plaintiff, his address and
residence, statement of cause of action and the relief which he wants to claim. The
government can give up the benefit of receiving the notice. If the urgent relief is to be
claimed by the plaintiff, then following the strict procedure of serving the notice need not be
met.

Under “Order 27” only the government and not the “instrumentality of the state under Article
12 of the Constitution” shall be included[2].

Section 79-82 of the Code deals with suits by or against the government or public officers in
their official capacity. According to Section 79 of the Code, when any suit is filed against the
government, then the government shall be referred to as defendant in the suit and likewise, if
any suit is filed by the government, then the government will be referred to as Plaintiff in the
suit. However, it is pertinent to note that if any such suit is filed either by the Central
Government or against the Central Government, then the plaintiff or defendant, as the case
may be, shall be the Union of India. And, if any such suit involves State Government, then,
the party to suit will be referred to as the State.

In-state of Rajasthan v Vidyawati, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in case if any
wrongs are committed by the government employees during their employment, then the
government itself will be liable for the acts committed by its employees. However, such acts
must not include the sovereign powers of the government. In Bhagchand Dagadusa vs The
Secretary Of State For India on 15 August 1923, the Bombay High Court observed it was
observed by the court that the procedure to deal with suits by or against the government is
laid down under order 27 and Section 79-82 of the Code. However, those rights and liabilities
that are enforceable either against the government or by the government are not covered by
these provisions. 

ANALYSIS

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

6|Page
Section 79 and 80 are defined as follows under the Procedure of Civil Code-

Section 79- This Section defines the concept of suits by or against the government:
Whenever a case is filed against a government or if it is filed by the government, the plaintiff
and the defendant who will be named in the case will be as provided under:
 Whenever the case is instituted by or against the central government, the Union of
India will be represented as the required plaintiff or defendant respectively.
 Whenever the suit is filed by or against the state government, the state government
will be required to act as the plaintiff or the defendant.

Section 80- This section deals with the concept of Notice. According to this Section, there
exists no onus for the institution of a suit against the government without issuing a notice
regarding the same, this includes the state of Jammu and Kashmir. With respect to institution
of a suit against a public officer with respect to the act done by him in his official capacity,
there is again a need for issuance of notice regarding the same. Further, the notice should be
served two months prior to the institution of the suit and it should be made sure that such a
notice was delivered or left at the office of:

 Whenever the case is against the central government, and it does not relate to the
railways then, the notice should be delivered to the secretary of the government.
 Whenever a case has been instituted against the central government and it relates
to the railways then, the notice is to be served to the general manager of that
railways.
 Whenever the case is instituted against any of the state governments then, the
notice is to be served either to the secretary to that government or to the
collector of the district.

Scope of Section 79

For the purpose of better understanding of Section 79 of Civil Procedure Code, there arises a
need for further fragmentation of the Section into various subtopics like that of the
jurisdiction of Section 79 and the institution of suit against the railways which will be looked
into in the next part of this article.

Section 79
Section 79 lays down the procedure whereby the suits are brought by or against the
government but at the same time, it does not deal with the rights and liabilities enforceable by
or against the government body [3]. In the case of Jehangir v. Secretary of State [4], an
important observation was made which was that this section gives no cause of action but only
declares the mode of the procedure when the cause of action arises.
Jurisdiction

Under Section 79, only the court within whose local limits, the cause of action arose, has the
jurisdiction to try the suit and otherwise it cannot. In the case of Dominion of India v. RCKC
Nath & Co. [5], it was held that words like ‘dwell’ or ‘reside’ or ‘carry on business’ which
are mentioned in Section 18, 19 and 20 of code, do not apply to the government.

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

7|Page
SUIT AGAINST RAILWAY

If the railway is administered by the union of India or a State, then any suit to enforce a claim
against railway administration can be brought against the Union of India or State, and this
may not include making the railway administration a part of the suit. But on the other hand
whenever there is a requirement for a suit for freight for carrying goods, then such a suit can
be instituted by the Union of India, and this was held in the landmark case of Union of India
v. RC Jall [7].

In the case of Secretary of State v. Rustom Khan [8], there was a significant observation

made regarding the liability to be sued, under Section 79 of CPC. No suit could lie against the
East India Company in respect of the act of state or acts of sovereignty, and therefore no suit
in respect of such acts would be competent.

Section 80

This part of the article will include under its ambit the detailed analysis of Section 80 of Civil
Procedure Code, and for the purpose of better understanding, the subtopics are to be studied
by breaking them down under the Section of nature and liability, contents of the notice, effect
of non-compliance and waiver of notice.

Nature and Object

The object laid down by this Section is- there should be an opportunity conferred on the part
of the Secretary of the State or the Public officer to reconsider his legal position in order to
make amends or settle down the claim if so advised. This can further be done without
litigation or afford restitution or without recourse to court of law [9]. Whenever a statutory
notice is issued to public authorizes, they are required to further take notice in all seriousness
and they are not required to sit over it and force the citizen to the redundancy of litigation.

Contents of the Notice

Notice under Section 80, is required to contain the following aspects: name, description,
residence of the plaintiff, the cause of action and lastly the relief which the plaintiff claims.
Also, the notice is required to convey to its recipients, sufficient information to enable him to
consider the claim, which was held in Union of India v. Shankar Stores [10]. The above-
mentioned particulars should be given in such a way that, it enables the authorities to identify
the person giving the notice.

Effect of Non-Compliance

Non-compliance with the requisites of this Section or any omission in the plaint which is
required would result in the rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11.  If the suit is
against a public official and a private individual, and no notice is served on the public officer,
the plaint is not to be rejected but the suit is carried on with the name of the public officer
struck off.

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

8|Page
Waiver of Notice

As the requirement of the notice is just procedural and not substantive, and as it is for the
benefit of the public officer or the government, it is open to government and public officers to
waive it. If the defendant wants to rely on the invalidity of the notice, it is for him to raise a
specific issue on the point, this was held in the case of Lalchand v. Union of India [11].

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

9|Page
ORDER XXVII

1- Suits by or against the government- It should be noted that in any suit by or against the
government, the plaint or the written statement should be signed by such a person, as the
government by general or special order, appoint in this behalf. State of Rajasthan v. Jaipur
Hosiery Mills [12], in this case, it was held that the sanction to sign must be prior to the
institution, and if not complied with this, the signing shall be by an incompetent person, and
further, issuing of a retrospective sanction will not preserve the defect.
Government pleader is an agent under the order 27 of CPC. The government pleader acts as
an agent for receiving processes issued against the government. Also he is the only person to
intimate the court that he is representing the government and no stamped power of attorney or
vakalatnama is required for the same [13].

Lutfar Rahman v. State of West Bengal [14]. In the aforementioned case, it was held that
when a person other than the government pleader wants to act as an agent, it is possible only
when the government agent intimates the Court that the former is acting under his directions.
Rule 5 of Order 27, has been discussed in the next segment of this article.
2- Attendance of person being able to answer the questions related to suits against the
government- The court may, in any case where government pleader is not accompanied by
person on the part of the government and if he is able to answer the questions relating to suit,
the court may direct the attendance of that person [15].

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

10 | P a g e
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

The amendment made in Section 80 is seen as that of a significant one, as it has acted as an
added advantage while dealing with the case, clause (2) and (3) were added to Section 80 by
the amendment of 1976. Sub Clause (2) has been inserted to permit the institution of the suit
without notice, but it must be accepted only after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing
cause in respect of relief claimed [16]. Sub-section (3) on the other hand prohibits the
dismissal of a suit where the notice has been served but suffers from certain technical
deficiencies.

It should also be taken into consideration that there exist various instances where there were
widespread abuse and misuse of the concerned section by the government and public officials
in order to dispose of the litigation on the grounds of technicality, and this aspect of the
provision should be given more attention in order to overcome the negative aspects which
exist in it. Moreover, sub-section (3) was included in the Section in order to offer a better
clarification that no suit against the government or a public officer can be dismissed merely
on the grounds of existence of defect or error in the notice.

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

11 | P a g e
SUITS BY OR AGAINST MINOR OR LUNATICS

Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with SUITS BY OR AGAINST
MINORS AND PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND. Order XXXII contains special provisions
applicable only in cases where either the suit is:

To be instituted at the cause of a minor/person of unsound mind

To be instituted against a minor/person of unsound mind

In the Code of Civil Procedure, the main object behind the enactment of Order XXXII is the
protection of the interests of minors and persons of unsound mind. The origin behind this
concern rests in Common Law. The Common Law position is that persons who are unable to
understand the nature and consequences of their actions (of immature intelligence and
discretion[1]) ought not to be liable for their actions so undertaken. This legal position stands
firm even today except where his status is that as a cestui qui trust.

Quoting Pollock:

An infant is not absolutely incapable of binding himself, but is, generally speaking, incapable
of absolutely binding himself by contract.[2]
The law will, as a general principle, treat all acts of infants which are of his benefit on the
same footing as those of adults, but will not permit him to do anything prejudicial to his own
interests.[3]

In Ram Chandra v. Man Singh it was held that a decree passed against a minor or a lunatic
without appointment of a guardian is a nullity and void, not merely voidable. [4] Now that the
origin of the concerned aspect of law is intelligible, it next becomes important to describe
who it pertains to.

A minor is, for purposes of civil litigation in India, defined to mean a person who has not
attained majority under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, that is a person who
has not completed the age of eighteen years and in the case of a minor of whose person or
property a guardian has been appointed by a court, or whose property is under a court of
wards, a person who has not attained the age of 21 years.[5]

Similarly, a person of unsound mind is a person who is declared after competent examination
to be unable to understand the nature and consequence of his actions due to the presence of a
mental disease or infirmity.

Rules 1 - 14 of Order XXXII apply not only to minors and persons, adjudged to be of
unsound mind, but also, those, who are found to be, by a Court upon inquiry to be incapable,
by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued. This
is based on the natural law principle that both parties to a suit must be heard equally before a
suit is adjudicated upon.

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

12 | P a g e
The next legal problem that arises is how best to ensure that such disadvantaged persons are
not taken advantage of by means of vexatious litigation or misuse of provision. This was
addressed by the concept of next friend or guardian. The concept is framed on the assumption
that a next friend or guardian, being an adult of reasonable prudence will act to ensure that
the disadvantaged persons interests are not misdirected.

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

13 | P a g e
CONCEPT OF NEXT FRIEND/ GUARDIAN:

The object behind having a next friend or guardian ad litem is that a minor is deemed to be
incapable of defending himself and therefore it is imperative that his interests in the suits
should be supervised by an adult person. This person, in case the minor is a plaintiff, is to be
called the next friend and when the minor is a defendant, is called a guardian ad litem or
guardian for the suit. However, neither the next friend nor guardian ad litem is a party to the
suit.[6] The power of the person so assigned is limited to the proceedings for which he is
recognised by the court.

Who can be appointed as Next Friend/Guardian:

Every suit by a minor should be instituted in his name through his guardian or next friend.[8]
If the same is not done, the plaint will be taken off the file.[9] Any person who has attained
majority and is of sound mind[10], may act as a guardian or next friend, provided his interest
is not adverse to that of minor, who is not the opposite party in the suit and who gives consent
in writing to act as a guardian or next friend.[11] In the absence of a guardian who is fit and
willing person to act as a guardian, the court may appoint any of its officers as guardian in
that particular suit.

Provisions to ensure that interests of minors are safeguarded during the suit - Rule 5 of Order
XXXII states that every representation made before the court other than under Rule 10(2)
must be made by his next friend or guardian.[13] Where an order is passed without such
representation, the same may be discharged with.[14] Further, by way of Rules 6 and 7,
without the leave of the court, no guardian or next friend can:

Receive any amount or movable property on behalf of the minor

Enter into any agreement on behalf of the minor

Reach any sort of compromise in the suit on behalf of the minor

The guardian must apply for leave of the court in all of the above cases and the application
must be accompanied with a pleaders certificate and affidavit. Any agreement entered into,
without the leave of the court is voidable at the instance of the minor.[15] Rules 6 and 7 have
been designed in order to safeguard the interests of a minor during the pendency of a suit
against hostile, negligent or collusive acts of next friend or guardian.

The principle these rules follow is that infant litigants become wards of court and therefore it
becomes the duty of the court to ensure that guardians act properly and bona fide in the
interests of the minor.[17] The protection however, is only during the pendency of the suit.

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

14 | P a g e
DUTY TO ACT IN BEST INTEREST OF MINOR:

As already stated in rule 4 any person complying with the qualifications under Rule 4 may
become guardian or next friend. The guardian or next friend however, must ensure that he
acts in best interests of the minor or unsound person. A guardian must ensure that the
discretionary powers exercised by him in his capacity as guardian including the
employment/dismissal of legal counsel etc. must be in the best interests of the minor and not
to advance his own cause or interests.

However, in certain cases it may be allowed for the guardian and the minor to have common
interest in the suit. As in the case of Ranganathan Chettiar v. Perrkarriappa Chettiar where the
mother was allowed to bring a suit concerning certain properties to be inherited by her and
her minor son which had been wrongfully claimed by the brother of the deceased husband.

Retirement, removal or death of guardian/next friend - A next friend or guardian who wishes
to retire must first procure a fit person to substitute him and give security for costs already
incurred by him.

The court may also remove a particular guardian or next friend if the court is satisfied that
either[21]:

His interest is adverse to that of the minor in the concerned case

He is in such a standing as to be capable of colluding with the opposite party or is closely

connected to the opposite party

He does not discharge his duty to the satisfaction of the court

He ceases to stay in India during the pendency of the suit and is therefore unable to look after
the best interests of the minor

Any other sufficiently justifiable cause as the court may decide

In a case where a guardian or next friend retires or is removed or in the case of his death, the
suit remains stayed until another appropriate guardian is duly appointed in that particular
case.[22]

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

15 | P a g e
WHEN MINOR ATTAINS MAJORITY:

When a minor attains majority, he can choose either to proceed with a particular suit or to
abandon it, if he had moved the court through a next friend/guardian. Therefore:
Where he elects to proceed with the suit - he must apply for an order from the court
discharging the next friend or guardian and for leave to proceed with the suit in his own
name.[23]

Where he elects to abandon the suit - he must apply for dismissal of suit on repayment of
costs to defendant or next friend/guardian as the case may be.[24]

Where minor co-plaintiff desires to repudiate suit - he may repudiate the suit and apply to
have his name as co-plaintiff stuck off. The court after examination of the circumstances may
remove his name from the suit on finding that he is not a necessary party or may make him a
defendant instead.[25]

Where minor desires that suit instituted in his name be dismissed on the ground that it was
unreasonable/improper - he may by application move the court for dismissal on such grounds.
[26]
It is important to mention that Order XXXII does not expressly provide for provisions when a
defendant would attain majority because a defendant cannot terminate the suit.[27]

Application of Order XXXII to persons of unsound mind - Rule 15 of the Code states that the
provisions of Order XXXII (Rules 1 to 14) shall squarely apply to persons of unsound mind
as they do to minor with exception of Rule 2A which relates to the furnishing of certain
securities by guardian.[28]

SUITS BY OR AGAINST CORPORATION:

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

16 | P a g e
Corporations.—Where any party to a suit is a corporation or a body of persons, whether
incorporated or not, empowered by law to sue or be sued, whether in its own name or in the
name of any officer or other person, any opposite party may apply for an order allowing him
to deliver interrogatories to any member or officer of such corporation or body, and an order
may be made accordingly.

Discovery by interrogatories.

Where any party to a suit is a corporation or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not,
empowered by law to sue or be sued, whether in its own name or in the name of any officer
of other person, any opposite party may apply for an order allowing him to deliver
interrogatories to any member or officer of such corporation or body, and an order may be
made accordingly.

Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.

Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance or for an injunction has
been passed is a corporation, the decree may be enforced by the attachment of the property of
the corporation or, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison of the
directors or other principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention.
Negotiable instruments and shares in corporations.—Where the property to be sold is a
negotiable instrument or a share in a corporation, the Court may, instead of directing the sale
to be made by public auction, authorized the sale of such instrument or share through a
broker.

Where the property sold is a debt not secured by a negotiable instrument, or is a share in a
corporation, the delivery thereof shall be made by a written order of the Court prohibiting the
creditor from receiving the debt or any interest thereon, and the debtor from making payment
thereof to any person except the purchaser, or prohibiting the person in whose name the
share, may be standing from making any transfer of the share to any person except the
purchaser, or receiving payment of any dividend or interest thereon, and the manager,
secretary or other proper officer of the corporation from permitting any such transfer or
making any such payment to any person except the purchaser.

Transfer of negotiable instruments and shares.—(1) Where the execution of a document or

the endorsement of the party in whose name a negotiable instrument or a share in a
corporation is standing is required to transfer such negotiable instrument or, share the Judge
or such officer as he may appoint in this behalf may execute such document or make such
endorsement as may be necessary, and such execution or endorsement shall have the same
effect as an execution or endorsement by the party.

1. Subscription and verification of pleading

In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the
corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation
who is able to depose to the facts of the case.

2. Service on corporation
SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

17 | P a g e
Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where the suit is against a
corporation, the summons may be served--
(a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or
(b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or
if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business.

3. Power to require personal attendance of officer of corporation

The Court may, at any stage of the suit, require the personal appearance of the secretary or of
any director, or other principal officer of the corporation who may be able to answer material
questions relating to the suit.

Injunction to corporation binding on its officer.—An injunction directed to a corporation is

bindig not only on the corporation itself, but also on all members and officers of the
corporation whose personal action it seeks to restrain.

FORMATS
SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

18 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT IN EXECUTION OF PROHIBITORY ORDER, WHERE THE
PROPERTY CONSISTS OF SHARES IN THE CAPITAL OF A CORPORATION (O. 21, r.
46.) (Title) T o Defendant and to……………………., Secretary of Corporation.
WHEREAS………..has failed to satisfy a decree passed against………………..on
the…………….day of………19……, in Suit No……………of. 19…….., in favour
of……………….., for Rs……………….; It is ordered that you, the defendant, be, and you
are hereby, prohibited and restrained, until the further order of this Court, from making any
transfer of……………...shares in the aforesaid corporation, namely,………., or from
receiving payment of any dividends thereon; and you,………,the Secretary of the said
Corporation, are hereby prohibited and restrained from permitting any such transfer or
making any such payment. GIVEN under my hand and the seal of the Court, this…………
day of…………19…….

PROHIBITORY ORDER AGAINST THE TRANSFER OF SHARE SOLD IN

EXECUTION (O. 21, r. 79.) (Title) T o and , Secretary of Corporation.
WHEREAS………….has become the purchaser at a public sale in execution of the decree, in
the above suit, of certain shares in the above Corporation, that is to say,
of…………………..standing in the name of you……………; It is ordered that
you……………….be, and you are hereby, prohibited from making any transfer of the said
shares to any person except the said…………………, the purchaser aforesaid, or from
receiving any dividends thereon; and you……………, Secretary of the said Corporation,
from permitting any such transfer or making any such payment to any person except the
said……………..., the purchaser aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand and the seal of the Court,
this………..day of …………..19………

SUITS BY OR AGAINST INDIGENT PERSONS

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

19 | P a g e
Taking into consideration the poverty rate of India, it is quite challenging for the deprived
section of society to institute a case in court and bear all the litigation expenses. But simply
saying that these vulnerable people don’t stand a chance in court, is not the solution. One
such solution is enshrined under Article 39A of the Indian Constitution that protects the
interests of vulnerable segments of society. It provides free legal aid to the poor and weaker
sections of society and ensures justice for all. Besides Article 39A, Articles 14 and 22 (1) of
the Indian Constitution provide that it is obligatory on the part of the State to ensure equality
before the law and provide a legal system that aims at promoting justice.

The dictionary meaning of the word ‘indigent person’ refers to a person who is suffering
from extreme poverty, impoverishment, or one who lacks the basic resources required in
normal life. In legal parlance, an indigent person does not possess the financial capacity to
pay the court fee. With the motive of providing justice to such individuals, provisions
under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were introduced. Any person who wants
to represent as an indigent person is required to file an application before the competent court
wherein he declares himself to be an indigent person. If the court is satisfied with such an
application and agrees to the fact that such person has no means to pay the court fee, then the
court will declare such person as an indigent person. Primarily, before the introduction of the
expression “indigent person”, the term “pauper” was used to denote the underprivileged
section of society. However, the latter got substituted by the term “indigent person.”

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

20 | P a g e
WHO IS AN INDIGENT PERSON?

As soon as a civil suit is filed in the court, the plaintiff(s), at the time of filing their plaint, are
required to submit the requisite court fees as directed by the Court Fees Act, 1870. However,
Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure saves indigent persons by way of discharging
them from the liability to pay the required court fees. It then allows such individuals to
institute the suit in forma pauperis which is subject to some conditions as postulated under
the Rule 1 of Order XXXIII of CPC. 

Discussing the definition of an indigent person in the light of  Union Bank of India v. Khader
International Construction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Khader International

Construction discussed the definition of an indigent person. It was observed by the court that
an indigent person is one who is not possessed of sufficient amount (other than property
exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable
him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaintiff in such a suit. In case no such fee is
prescribed if such person is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the
property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit
he would be an indigent person.

A.A. Haja Muniuddin v. Indian Railways

In A.A. Haja Muniuddin v. Indian Railways, the court held that “Access to justice cannot be
denied to an individual merely because he does not have the means to pay the prescribed
fee.”
 Rule1 gives us the definition of an indigent person. Any person who does not
possess sufficient means to pay the requisite fee as prescribed by the Court Fee
Act. However, Rule 1 also states that while considering sufficient means, the
valuation of the property possessed by an indigent person will be exempted from
attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit. Such
exempted property is the basic need of living for the individuals. Thus, as per law,
it is not permitted to be attached. 
 In cases where no such fee is prescribed by the Court Fee Act and if the applicant
does not possess property worth one thousand rupees or where the cost of the
property is less than one thousand rupees, then in such case, the person will be
considered as an indigent person. However, this rule has the same exception as
mentioned above. It states that while calculating the valuation of the
property, Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be kept in mind.

Following properties are exempted and must not be attached while calculating the valuation
of the property possessed by the indigent person:

(a) The necessary wearing apparel, cooking vessels, beds;

(b) tools of artisans, agriculturist; 
(c) houses and buildings belonging to an agriculturist, labourer or a domestic servant;
(d) books of account;
(e) a mere right to sue for damages;
(f) any right of personal service;
SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

21 | P a g e
(g) stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners; 
(h) the wages of labourers and domestic servants;
(i) salary to the extent of the first four hundred rupees and two-third of the remainder in the
execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance: 
(ia) one-third of the salary in the execution of any decree for maintenance; 
(j) the pay and allowances of persons to whom the Air Force Act, 1950 or the Army Act,;
1950 or the Navy Act (62 of 1957), applies; 
(k) compulsory deposits and sums to which Provident Funds Act, 1925;
(ka)  deposits and sums to which the Public Provident Fund Act applies; 
(kb) all money payable under a judgment debtor’s policy of insurance; 
(kc) the interest of a lessee of a residential building; 
(l) any allowance forming part of the emoluments of any government servant; 
(m) an expectancy of succession by survivorship or other merely contingent or possible right
or interest;
(n) a right to future maintenance; 
(o) any allowance declared by any Indian law to be exempt from liability to attachment or
sale in execution of a decree; and 
(p) where the judgment-debtor is a person liable for the payment of land revenue; any
movable property which, under any law for the time being applicable to him, is exempt from
sale for the recovery of arrears of such revenue.
Note: While deciding whether a person is indigent or not, any property which is
acquired/purchased/sold by the indigent person after presenting his application in the
competent court for seeking permission to sue as an indigent person, and if such exchange of
property is done before the court makes a decision on the application, then in such case, the
properties so acquired/purchased/sold are mandatorily required to be taken into account while
deciding the question of whether or not an applicant is an indigent person.

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

22 | P a g e
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AS AN INDIGENT

In Lakshmi v Vijaya Bank, R.V. Revanna filed a petition under Order 33 Rule 1 and Rule 7
wherein he represented himself to be an indigent person. The respondent contended the
petitioner to be an indigent person and questioned his indigency. Before the cross-
examination of the petitioner took place, he died leaving behind his wife and children.
Thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner’s wife to permit them to file the suit as a
legal representative. The trial court observed that in case of the death of the applicant, the
legal representatives won’t be permitted to substitute the indigent person as the right to sue as
an indigent person is a personal right. However, the high court admitted the application filed
by the legal representative and allowed them to file the petition as indigent persons. 

Inquiry into the means of an indigent person 

Rule 1A of Order 33 states that the Chief Ministerial Officer of the court has the authority to
do an inquiry. The inquiry is conducted in the first instance to know if an applicant is an
indigent person or not. It is upon the discretion of the court whether to accept the report
submitted by such an officer or make an inquiry.

Procedure to file a suit as an indigent person 

Before filing a suit as an indigent person begins, it is important to add all the relevant
contents in the application seeking permission to be an indigent person [Rule 2]. As per Rule
2 of Order XXXIII, the application must include the particulars similar to what is mentioned
in the plaint and all movable or immovable properties of the indigent person/applicant along
with its estimated value. 

The indigent person/applicant shall himself in person present the application before the court.
In case, such a person is exempted from appearing in the court, an authorized agent may
present the application on his behalf. In certain circumstances where there are two or more
plaintiffs, the application can be presented by any of them. [Rule 3]. The suit begins as soon
as the application to sue as an indigent person is duly presented before the court.
Subsequently, the indigent person/applicant is examined by the court. However, if the
applicant is being represented by his agent, then in such a case, the court may examine the
applicant by the commission [Rule 4]. 

Rejection of application 

As per Rule 5 of Order XXXIII of CPC, the court will prima facie reject an application

seeking permission to sue as an indigent person in the following cases:
1. In case when the application is not framed and presented in the prescribed manner.
Here, the term ‘prescribed manner’ implies that the application must abide by Rule
2 and Rule 3 of Order XXXIII. Rule 2 and Rule 3 deal with the contents of the
application and its presentation respectively. 
2. The application can be rejected by the court in case the applicant is not an indigent
person. 
3. The application can be rejected by the court when the applicant has fraudulently
disposed of any property within two months before the presentation of the
application. It can also be rejected when the applicant dishonestly applies only

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

23 | P a g e
 with the motive of just seeking permission from the court to sue as an indigent
person. 
4. The court possesses the power to reject the application filed by an indigent person
in an instance where there is no cause of action.
5. In case, where the applicant has entered into an agreement with any third party and
such agreement pertains to the subject matter of the suit wherein the other party
(other than the applicant) obtains interest, then, it is one of the reasons for rejection
of the application. It shows the applicant’s intention to defraud the court. 
6. Rejection of application is done when the allegations indicate that the suit is barred
by any law.
7. Rejection of application is done in cases where any other individual enters into an
agreement with the applicant to help him financially in the litigation. 
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ML Sethi v. RP Kapoor observed that the
provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 involving the discovery of documents would apply
to proceedings under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 In Dhanalakshmi v. Saraswathy case, the plaint was found to be undervalued. So,
it was returned for presentation in the court along with proper valuation and court
fee. A time of one month was granted for doing so and the plaintiff filed the plaint
within the stipulated period. Subsequently, the plaint was presented in the Sub-
Court along with a petition seeking leave to sue as indigent persons to which the
court observed that though the petition was filed under Order XXXIII Rule 1, one
cannot say that the application filed under Rule 2 seeking permission to file the
suit as indigent persons might not be rejected as provided in Rule 5 of Order
XXXIII CPC. A similarity was drawn between Order XXXIII Rule 5 CPC and
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. While Order VII Rule 11 is used in the rejection of plaint,
Order XXXIII Rule 5 deals with the rejection of an application filed for permission
to sue as indigent persons. 
 Order 33 Rule 6 provides that the court is required to issue a notice to both the
opposite party and the Government pleader. Following which a day is fixed on
which evidence is received. On such a day, the applicant presents in the form of
proof about his indigency. The opposite party or the Government Pleader can
present their evidence opposing the applicant’s indigency. 
 Order 33 Rule 7 provides for the procedure to be followed at hearing of the
application. The court shall examine the witnesses (if any), produced by both the
parties and hear arguments on the application or evidence (if any) admitted by the
court. Subsequently, the court will either allow the application or reject it.
 Order 33 Rule 8 explains the procedure to be followed after the admission of the
application. The application after being admitted has to be numbered as well as
registered. Such an application will be considered as a plaint in a suit.
Subsequently, such a suit shall proceed in the same manner as an ordinary suit
does. 
 Order 33 Rule 9 states that the court has an option to revoke the permission
granted to the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. The court can utilise this
discretionary power on receiving the application by the defendant or by the
government pleader, in the following circumstances:
1. Where the applicant is guilty of vexatious or improper conduct in the course of the
suit; or
2. Where the applicant’s means are such that he will not continue to sue as an
indigent person; or

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

24 | P a g e
 3. Where the applicant has entered into an agreement under which another person has
obtained an interest in the subject matter of the suit. 
 The Kerala High Court in R. Jayaraja Menon v. Dr. Rajakrishnan And Anr., while
deciding upon an application concerning the withdrawal of permission to sue as an
indigent person observed that Rule 9 of Order 33 provides for a situation where the
plaintiff, who was initially permitted to sue as an indigent person, ceases to be an
indigent person after the suit is filed. In case a plaintiff ceases to be an indigent
person, the court shall compel him to pay the court fee that he would have paid if
he had not been allowed to sue as an indigent person. It is so plainly a part of an
order under Rule 9 of Code directing the plaintiff to pay the court fee that he
would have paid if he had not been allowed to file as an indigent person from the
outset.
 Rule 9A of the Code provides that the court will assist the indigent person by
assigning him a pleader. A pleader is a person who is entitled to appear and plead
on behalf of other persons in the court.

Costs associated with the suit

Order XXXII Rule 16 of CPC states that the costs in the suit will include the costs of an
application to sue as an indigent person as well as the cost of inquiry into indigency.

1. When an indigent person succeeds: According to Rule 10 of Order XXXIII, where
the plaintiff (indigent person) succeeds in the suit, the court shall calculate the
amount of court fees and costs and recover the same from the plaintiff in the
manner as if he had not been permitted to sue as an indigent person. In case the
plaintiff (indigent person) fails to pay the amount, then in such case, the amount
shall be recoverable by any such party that was ordered by the decree. 
2. Where an indigent person fails: According to Rule 11 and Rule 11-A Order
XXXIII where the plaintiff (indigent person) fails or the permission granted to the
indigent person is withdrawn under Rule 9A, or where the suit is withdrawn or
dismissed, the court shall in such case either order him (plaintiff) or a co-plaintiff
to pay court fees and costs in the manner as if he had not been permitted to sue as
an indigent person. Where the suit abates on account of the death of a plaintiff,
such court fees would be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Khader International
Construction, held that Order 33 CPC is an enabling provision that allows the
indigent person to file a suit without paying the court fee at the initial stage. In
case the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the court calculates the amount of court fee
which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as
an indigent person and that amount would be recoverable by the State from any
party ordered by the decree to pay the same. However, if the suit is dismissed, then
also the State would take steps to recover the court fee payable by the plaintiff and
this court fee shall be a first charge on the subject- matter of the suit. 
4. So there is only a provision for the deferred payment of the court fees and this
benevolent provision is intended to help the poor litigants who are unable to pay
the requisite court fee to file a suit because of their poverty.
5. According to Rule 12 of Order XXXIII, the state government possesses the right to
apply to the court to pass an order concerning payment of court fee to be paid
under Rule 10. 
SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

25 | P a g e
 6. Rule 13 deals with cases where the state government shall be deemed to be a party
to suit. 
7. Rule 14 provides that the court shall recover the court fee by forwarding the order
or decree to the collector who shall then collect the fee in the manner as if it were
an arrear of land revenue. 
8. In case if the application to sue as an indigent person is refused, he shall still
possess the right to file a suit in an ordinary manner. However, such a person shall
be denied to file an application of similar nature in respect of the same matter
[Rule 15]. 
9. Rule 17 provides that any defendant (indigent person) who wishes to file a set-off
or counterclaim shall be permitted to do so. 
10. Rule 18 states that apart from Order XXXIII of the Code, the state or the Central
Government may make additional provisions for free legal services in respect of
indigent persons. 

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

26 | P a g e
INTERPLEADER SUIT

Meaning and definition

When the plaintiff on behalf of the claimant filed a suit for choosing the actual owner of the
property then it is called an interpleader suit. When a Plaintiff is not in the direct possession
of the property or thing, he files a suit. Petitioner has the indirect possession of the property.
There is more than one defendant in this suit. Because in this suit more than one defendant
can file the suit for the claim of property. When the actual owner of the property dies without
transferring the property to anyone then the property transfer becomes the interpleader suit.
Other than that the plaintiff may file a suit for the movable or immovable property to deliver
the property to the defendant because more than one person has filed a suit for the claim of
property. Debt is required in this suit or some amount of money for the dispute which is
between two defendants. Defendants can claim some debt from another defendant of the
property. Only the plaintiff is the one who cannot claim any cost and is also ready to deliver
the property to the defendants. Interpleader is defined in Section 88 of the Civil Procedure
Court. 

Examples
1. Sanjeev has a 2 BHK flat in the co-operative colony. He has two wives. Because
of some diseases, he caused to die. After his death, his wives claimed the property.
The father of Sanjeev filed a suit in the court to decide the actual owner of the
property.
2. Akhil has 2 crores fix deposit. He has two wives and both wives have 1 child. Both
of them claim the money for their child maintenance. The bank filed a suit in the
court to know the order related to the real owner of the money for the maintenance
of the child. 

  Res Judicata   

Res Judicata is the oldest law that is defined in the Civil Procedure Court under section
11. Res Judicata means the suit which has already got the judgment from the court. If any suit
is filed under Res Judicata then the same subject-matter cannot filed as a new suit, in other
form of law or any other court of law. If by mistake any case is filed in any other court of law
which is already filed under Res Judicata then the judge can dismiss that petition directly
without any further proceeding. 

 Interpleader suit in CPC

Interpleader suit in C.P.C is defined in section 88 with order no XXXV. An interpleader suit
means if any person claims any property of her husband or her parents and in case the owner
of the property is dead without transferring the property, then the second owner has to claim
the property from the bank or authority. After claiming for such property the bank or the
authority has to file an interpleader suit in the court. Then the court will decide who will be
the main owner of the property. In an interpleader suit, there were many defendants to claim
the property. Plaintiff gets the monetary value for filing the suit in the court on behalf of the
defendant. He is not liable for any damage.    

 The Reinstitution of interpleader suit.

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

27 | P a g e
Where interpleader suit may be reinstituted and Power to state case for the opinion of the
Court is defined under Section 88 and 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. When
defendants blame each other for the claim of the same property, debt or sum of money from
the plaintiff who is not in the direct possession of the property or debt and also he doesn’t
claim interest and ready to deliver the property and he is ready to give the property to the
claimant. The suit which is filed related to Res Judicata cannot be instituted in another
court.   
 The Object of filing interpleader suit.
The suit is filed when the object is to be claimed by the defendants. The claim of the suit gets
adjudicated. The suit is filed when any person in any condition cause death and has left some
of the property without transferring to other members of the family then that other family
member has to claim the property or money from the bank and then the bank has to become
claimant to file a suit in the court to decide whomever the property has to be transferred. This
type of suit filed in the Res Judicata court. 

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

28 | P a g e
INTERPLEADER SUIT AND ITS CONDITION

 Conditions of Interpleader suit

1. Debt, money, property either movable or immovable in the dispute.
2. Two defendants are there in the suit.
3. Both defendants can claim each other for the property or money.
4. The person who has to pay the debt to the defendant is not valid for any interest. 
5. The Claimant is willing to pay the debt, or some amount of money, or property to
the defendant. 
6. Suits are not pending in this.
7. This suit cannot be filed twice if the judgment is given in Res judicata. 
 Test of applicability 

The test of applicability is done during the suit when the pleading is going on. This test is
done by a court of law, after this test they decide about the next owner of the property or
money. This test is very important for the interpleader suit. Because in an interpleader suit
one or more defendants are there. In a test of applicability, some questions are asked from the
defendant during the pleading. 

 Plaint in an interpleader suit

The Plaintiff is the person who only filed a suit in the court on behalf of defendants for the
claim of property which is claimed by the different defendants. The Plaintiff has no direct
possession of the property. He has an indirect possession of the property. But in this type of
suit, the only plaint can file a suit. The defendant is not allowed to file a suit. 

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

29 | P a g e
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERPLEADER SUIT AND IMPLEADER
SUIT
Interpleader suit
1. The person who makes the interplea.
 2.   There is a chance for a third party to enter into
a lawsuit as their interest.
 3. Examples: A and B claim the property of her
husband with C. C can sue A and B according to
the interpleader suit in the court. A and B will
litigate in court who owns the property.
SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD
Impleader suit
In an impleader, suit defendant
files a lawsuit and brings the third
party in his lawsuit who is not a
part of the liability.
Third-party is liable for the
plaintiff’s claim against the
defendant in the lawsuit.
Example: A is the person who slips
and falls in the owner’s house and
caused an injury and then he sues
the owner for his injury
T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)
30 | P a g e
PLAINT IN AN INTERPLEADER SUIT

The plaintiff who sues the defendant cannot claim any interest in the subject matter in dispute
in extra. They get charges or costs for the interpleader suit. There were many defendants in
the interpleader suit to claim the debt or property. There is no collusion between the plaintiff
and defendant. Only collusion between defendants. Where the plaintiff is capable of paid or is
capable to place in the custody of the court the plaintiff has to pay or place it before he is
entitled to any order in the suit. When the defendant sues the plaintiff in an interpleader suit
in the same subject-matter in which the suit is already pending which is filed by the plaintiff.
The proceeding will continue but against the plaintiff.

How to file an interpleader suit?

1.  The suit can only be filed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff can be a bank in any
subject-matter of interpleader suit. No landlord can sue to his tenant or no family
member can sue the defendant.
2. All the things are kept in the custody of the court
3. There were many defendants in the interpleader suit
4. An Interpleader suit is filed in the subject-matter of debt, money, property,
movable or immovable property. 
5. The plaintiff from whom the property is claimed, must not claim other charges or
cost who is ready to pay or deliver it to the rightful claimant. 
 First hearing 

In the first hearing court involved in the proceedings to know the contention of the parties. In
an interpleader suit plaintiff only is allowed to file a suit against the defendant when the
defendant claims the debtor property from the plaintiff. Plaintiff is not in the direct
possession of the property. He filed the suit on behalf of the defendant. After the suit is filed
the plaintiff gets free from all liability of the suit. He gets the substantive relief. The plaintiff
pays the court for the suit which is filed in the court. That amount never comes into dispute.
After paying the court plaintiff gets free from all liability. Where the decision is given in
favor of both parties then the opening of the packet becomes more important for the interest
of both parties.     
 Non-appearance of claimant
In any case, any party fails to come on the date of proceeding even his statement gets
recorded already then also proceeding to get adjourned. He will be dismissed from the suit.
And also his amount gets deducted. The plaintiff can raise an issue in case one of the parties
fails to give the payment. 
 Sub Rule 3
 Once suit proceeding has started with the provisions of rule 10 and rule 17 then the court can
allow the amendment of the plaintiff by the inclusion of any property in the subject-matter of
the suit and by adding certain parties in the suit as a defendant. According to rule 10 of
orders, 1 says that if the suit is filed in the name of the wrong plaintiff and if the court
doubted about the wrong plaintiff. The court can consider the mistake as a bonafide mistake
in any stage of the trial. The court can add new parties in the suit as a plaintiff or defendant. 
 Procedure where the defendant is suing the plaintiff 
SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

31 | P a g e
When the defendant sues the plaintiff in the same subject-matter, even the previous suit is
pending the other suit will be filed in the court and suit is against the plaintiff in the previous
suit also. Cost may be the same as for the plaintiff which he has to pay to the court.
Who cannot file an interpleader suit?
Defendants cannot file the interpleader suit because defendants are the claimant who claims
the property or debt from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is only allowed to file a suit in the court.
And the plaintiff only pays the cost of the suit in the court. But defendants only litigate in
court in the subject-matter. Defendants are free from all liability after filing the suit in the
court. 
 Interpleader suit by agents 
An Agent cannot file an interpleader suit against his owner or the party. He cannot even
claim anything from the tenant and landlord. 

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

32 | P a g e
CASE LAW:

1. Smt. Mohan Devi V. SH. Gokal Chand And Anr

 Facts of the case:
The tenant filed a case against the landlord in court under an interpleader suit for threatening
them to pay the rent of the house. But according to the tenant, he is paying the rent according
to the date and time. Defendant 1 claimed that he lowers the rent as the rent is 250/- per
month but he lowers the rent to 200/- per month. But after the relevant fact, it has been
noticed that defendants tried to threaten the tenant to pay the rent. When the written statement
is given by the defendant he admitted that tenant is paying 250/- per month. But according
to order 33, rule 5 of CPC the suit is not maintainable. The RC and E officer observed that
the tenant did not give any evidence related to his shop and it is clearly mentioned in the
evidence that the tenant is not the owner of the shop and had let it out to one Alladia. He
accordingly declared that the shop was vacant.
 Interpleader suit by Railway Company
Railway company can file a suit against agent and third party under order 35 of rule 5.   
Case law:
1. Chhaganlal Himatlal vs. the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway
Facts of the case:
The railway company has filed a suit in the interpleader suit against the agent and third party
claiming consignor that the company is not an agent of the consignor. According to the
provisions of the railway act, the company is in direct contract with the consignor for the
carriage of goods. So the railway company has claimed that the company is not an agent of
the consignor but they are in contract with the consignor for the carriage of goods. The court
gives the decision that in virtue of Order XXXV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, railway
company is not competent to constitute an interpleader suit as it was an agent of the
consignors.  
 Interpleader suit by tenants 
No agents can sue their principles and no tenants can sue their landlords in the interpleader
suit for compelling him to interplead with other person makes a claim related to the tenants
through the landlord. If the other person is claiming the property with the old landlord who
has no direct possession of the property and tried to ask for the rent with the tenant. Then
tenant can file an interpleader suit. 
Case law
Neeraj Sharma vs. The District Sangpur Gram  
Facts of the case:
Shanti Devi who died in the year 1922 is the owner of the premises. After the death of the
owner of the premises the petitioner, Neeraj Sharma claimed that he is the owner of the
premises. The respondent takes the premises in dispute from Smt. Shanti Devi who is already
dead. Then the petitioner filed a petition for the application for ejectment of the respondent
society on the ground of non-payment of rent. After that, the petitioner filed a second petition
based on the same ground. In judgment, the provisions of Order 35 Rule 5 of C.P.C are not
applicable to the case because the plaintiff does not pointed out to anyone defendant to be his
landlord.
 Charge for plaintiff cost 
Where the thing claimed is capable of being paid into court or placed in the custody of the
court, the plaintiff may be required to pay or place it before he can be entitled to any order in
the suit. 

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

33 | P a g e
 Interpleader suitcases
 Rajan Sharma And Others vs Labh Singh And Others 6th may 2011
Facts of the case
The court finds no merit in the appeals. According to Order 35, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which prohibits the tenant to file a suit against his landlord for the purpose of
compelling him to interplead  with any person other than making claim through such
landlord. 
Car and Universal Finance Company Limited v. Caldwell
Facts of the cases:
The respondent is the owner of the Jaguar car. The third person has forced Mr. Caldwell to
sell the car for a cheque amount of 965 dollars and a deposit of 10 dollars. Respondent agrees
to sell the car and he sold the car and got the cheque and when he tried to convert the cheque
into cash. The cheques got dishonoured. The respondent goes to the police about the whole
incident and also informed this incident to the Automobile Association. The respondent told
that Mr. Norris has sold the car to different dealers. The judgment is given by the high court.
The court said that the contract was validly rescinded. It was so without communication, but
through an unequivocal act of election, demonstrating Caldwell no longer wishes to be
bound.
  N.M.N. Duraiswami Chettiar v. Dindigul Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd
Facts of the case
The first has deposited the money of Rs 2000 in the bank in his savings account. After that,
he fulfilled the form of the bank to recover the amount of money he deposited in the bank in
his savings account. But his brother the second defendant has given notice to the bank that
the money should not be recovered of the 1st defendant because that money is the share of
the family members also. Then the suit has been filed by the bank against the defendant’s
related to the debt. The council dismissed the petition saying that Interpleader Suit is not
maintainable and the second ground for dismissal of petition is in regard to this deposit the
relationship between the bank and the first defendant was that of principal and agent.
 Satyanarain v. District Judge, Tonk & Ors
Facts of the case
The petitioner has filed a suit against the respondent. But the case gets dismissed by the civil
judge. Then the third petitioner has filed a case against petitioner to recover the rent along
with the profit He filed an interpleader suit. In the judgment of this case the judge dismissed
the application of the petitioner under Order 35 Rule 5 of CPC. 
 Neeraj Sharma vs The District Sangpur Khadi Gram
Facts of the case
The respondent has filed a suit against the petitioner than again petitioner has filed an
interpleader suit against the respondent. Shanti Devi who died in the year 1922 is the owner
of the premises. After the death of the owner of the premises the petitioner, Neeraj Sharma
claimed that he is the owner of the premises. The respondent takes the premises in dispute
from Smt. Shanti Devi who is already dead. Then the petitioner filed a petition for the
application for ejectment of the respondent society on the ground of non-payment of rent.
After that, the petitioner filed a second petition based on the same ground. The Provisions of
Order 35 Rule 5 C.P.C is not applicable in the case.
 Ashok Leyland v. State of Tamil Nadu
Facts of the case:
This is related to tax. The petitioner has the factory in which he manufactures the vehicles in
the state of Maharashtra and the state of Rajasthan. The petitioner claimed that he has
regional offices where his vehicles all governmental works are done related to tax and many
more. The tax law came into question. The judgment held that:
SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

34 | P a g e
 1. Section 6A does not create conclusive presumption as contended on behalf of the
assessee.
2. The order of assessing authority is accepting form F and passed during the
assessment at any point.
3. Its amenability to the power of reopening and revision depends upon the
provisions of the concerned sales tax enactments by virtue of the operation of
section 9(2) of the Central Act.
4.  It is not possible to accept that an order under Section 6A(2) has an independent
existence.
5. An order refusing to accept Form F may or may not be applicable independently
depending upon the provisions of the sales tax enactments, but it is certainly
capable of being questioned if an appeal is preferred against the order of
assessment.
6. If orders accepting Form F are sought to be reopened, it can be done as part of the
reopening of assessment or may be done independently, which would depend upon
the language of the relevant provisions of the concerned State Acts.

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

35 | P a g e
INTERPLEADER SUIT FORMAT 

In the court of Civil Judge at Delhi 

                                                   Suit no. …………../19 …………
1. Rajan Sharma 
New Delhi, Janakpuri                                                                …………………….. Plaintiff 
2. Labh Singh
     New Delhi, Saket                                                               …………………. Respondent 
3. Labh Singh
     New Delhi,                                                                      ……………………..Respondent
                                                  Plaint under Order 35 Rule 1 
The plaintiff respectfully states as follows;
 (Matter of Rent Restriction)
1. Petitioner is the tenant of the shop 
2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the owner of the shop
  (Facts constituting a cause of action)
3. Respondent 1 and 2 have submitted that the interpleader suit filed by the petitioner
is not maintainable.  
4. Filed a petition for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity.
5. Petitioner agreed to deposit the rent to the court. 
6. The respondent no 1 and 2 have accepted this demand of petitioner of giving rent
to the court. 
   According to Order 35, rule 5
7. The tenant has the right to file a suit against all the owners of the shop.
8.   The respondent’s suit is maintainable and has action. 
9.   Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable. 
10.   The suit is against the owner of the shop.
11.   The tenant cannot file a suit against the landlord. 
                                                         Jurisdiction
Tenant is not applicable to the suit.
The tenant cannot file a suit against landlord according to rule 35
The relief claimed: the plaintiff prays that
No relief claimed because this case gets dismissed because the tenant cannot file a suit
against the landlord.
  Place: ………………………..                                                         Signature of the plaintiff 
Plaintiff                                                                                                             Advocate for
                                                            Verification 
I,………….., verify that content from 1 to the last para is valid and correct according to my
knowledge and belief and is concealed there. 
Signature 
Plaintiff 
      

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

36 | P a g e
INTERPLEADER SUIT IN THE USA 
The plaintiff has to deny his claim to the res for the avail of interpleader remedy. But this rule
is removed from the jurisdiction of interpleader suit. If claimant claims for the property of his
member who already died to the beneficiary. But if the beneficiary proves that the owner
dead is a suicide than the claim of the claimant denies. The claimant has to prove in the court
that the owner of the property dies with the accident, not died as suicide.  According to the
U.S.A jurisdiction, there are two types of interpleader actions. 
Interpleader governed by 28 U.S.C. and 1335 which allows an individual with a stake which
is, or maybe, claimed by two or more adverse claimants, to interplead those claimants and
bring them into a singular action. Title 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) is the portion of
the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs the federal judicial system and
U.S. Code 1335 provides for interpleader suit according to which The district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of any civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader
filed by any person, firm, or corporation, association, or society having in his or its custody or
possession money or property of the value of $500 or more, or having issued a note, bond,
certificate, policy of insurance, or other instrument of value or amount of $500 or more, or
providing for the delivery or payment or the loan of money or property of such amount or
value, or being under any obligation written or unwritten to the amount of $500 or more.
Section 88 of the order no 35 of the C.P.C under Indian law specify that quantum of the
property against the title of the interpleader suit. 
While according to the U.S law 1335 provides the money or value of the property is having a
note, bond, certificate, policy of insurance. 
In the Indian Law, there were no types of interpleader suit but in the U.S law, there were
types of interpleader suit. 

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

37 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

Hence, all the three provisions which bring to light the various procedures and rules involved
in the suit by or against the government or a public officer have been discussed and analyzed
in detail. It can be said that the applicability of these sections must be determined by the law
as it stands [17]. Further, if the procedure lay down by the rule in these sections is not
followed, then the court is to proceed with the footing that there is no appearance of
government pleader on behalf of the public officer. And lastly, the rules laid down in Order
27 are to be strictly abided by while filing a suit.

In addition to all the above-mentioned aspects, the sections regarding suits by or against the
government and public officers also specify the procedure to be followed while filing of a
writ and also what steps to be taken when there is permanent suit on appeal or if there is a
revision.

There is also mention of the nature and applicability of Section 80 of the civil procedure
code, and this section drags its attention towards the matter whether the serving of notice is a
mere formality or is it a mandatory aspect under the section. Lastly, the section also deals
with the aspect of what acts come under the arena of official capacity.

At last, I would conclude my topic by saying that interpleader suit means the suit which was
filed by the plaintiff on behalf of defendants because the actual owner of the property or debt
dies and plaintiff who is in the indirect possession of the property can file a suit on behalf of
defendants, who claim for the ownership of the property. Because this has one more than the
defendant. There is a collusion between defendants. Defendants only litigate in court in front
of judges. Plaintiff has no direct possession of the property he is only there to sue in court to
decide who will be the actual owner of the property or debt. He is liable for the amount of
money for the suit filed. An interpleader suit is defined in the Civil Procedure Court.
Interpleader suit can only be file under Res Judicata. This suit cannot be reviewed in any
other court of law. This suit once reviewed in the court of law then it cannot be reviewed
twice.  

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

38 | P a g e
REFERENCES:

1. Ankit Vardhan, Suits by or against Government (Section 79 – 82 CPC), Legal

Bites – Law and Beyond (August 2, 2017, 12: 10
PM), https://www.legalbites.in/suits-by-or-against-government-section-79-82/.
2. Namrata Shah, SECTION 79, 80 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908,
Aaptaxlaw  (JUNE 7, 2016, 11: 30 AM), http://www.aaptaxlaw.com/code-of-civil-
procedure/section-79-80-code-of-civil-procedure-suits-by-or-against-government-
notice-section-79-80-of-cpc-1908-code-of-civil-procedure.html.
3. AIR 1930 All 225 (FB)
4. (1903) ILR 27 Bom 189.
5. AIR 1950 Cal 207.
6. Devika, Section 79 CPC detailed, The SCC Online Blog (October 5, 2018, 10: 10
AM), https://blog.scconline.com/post/2018/10/05/order-27-rule-5-cpc-mandates-
the-court-to-ensure-disputes-concerning-public-undertakings-are-resolved-
amicably-arbitrator-appointed-therefor-sc/.
7. AIR 1958 MP 425.
8. 68 IA109 AIR 1941 PC 64.
9. Adarsh Gill, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 section 80,  LegalCrystal (MAR 03,
2011, 2:45 PM), https://www.legalcrystal.com/cases/search/name:code-of-civil-
procedure-1908-section-79.
10. AIR 1974 Ori 85.
11. AIR 1960 Cal 270.
12. AIR 1997 Raj 10.
13. Mulla, Code of Civil Procedure (Abridged) 390-406 (ed 523)
14. AIR 1954 Cal 455.
15. AIR 1980 P&H 318.
16. 3 Justice M.L. Singhal, Suranjan Chakraverti, Bholeshwar Nath,  Civil Procedure
Code 412-35 (ed 347.05).
17. 7 C.K Takwani, Civil Procedure with limitation Act, 1963 426-37 (ed 347.05)

SPECIAL SUITS PRACHI A. RATHOD T.Y.L.L.B. (Roll No. – 2223342)

39 | P a g e