Civil Procedure Code Q & A

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Question No. 1.: - Discuss briefly the scope and object of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, as amended up to date. Is the Code
complete in itself?
Historical Background and Scheme of Civil Procedure Code 1908
Before 1859, there was no uniform codified law relating to procedure of

civil courts in India. In those days the crown courts at presidency towns
and the provincial courts at mofussils were governed by the different
systems of civil procedures by certain rules, regulations and special acts
as, applicable to them from time to time.
For the first time in 1859, uniform code of civil procedure was introduced
with passing of the Civil Procedure Code (Act/VIII of 1859), but it did not
serve the purpose since it was not applicable to the supreme courts
(Crown Courts under the Royal Charter) and Sadar Diwani Adalats
(Principal Courts under the Judicial Plan by the Governor General). After
the passing of Indian High Courts Act, 1861, the Supreme courts and
Sadar Adalats were abolished as in their place High Court were
established in their place at Madras, Bombay and Calcutta and the code
of 1859 was made applicable to high courts.
The code of 1859 was amended from time to time and was replaced with
the passing of Code of Civil Procedure 1877. The Code of 1877 also
was amended in 1878 and 1879. In 1882, the third Code of Civil
Procedure was enacted. The Code of Civil procedure, 1882 also was
amended several times and ultimately the present Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 was passed overshadowing the defects of the Code of
1882.
Meaning and Objects:

The law relating to the procedure of civil courts is regulated/ governed by
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the word 'Code' literally means, a
systematic collection of statutes, body of law so arranged as to avoid
inconsistency and overlapping.
1. The main object of Code of Civil Procedure is to consolidate and

amend the law relating to the procedure of civil courts in India.
2. As such, it was enshrined in the preamble of the Code that it was
enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the
procedure to the followed in court
3. The civil courts having civil jurisdiction in India, it regulated the
action in civil courts and the parties before it to the day of
realization of its formity i.e. the execution of the decree and order
4. In simple words, the aim of procedure law is to implement the
principles of substantive law. It ensures fair justice by enforcing the
rights and liability of the citizens.
Extent and application:

The Code of civil Procedure is passed in 1908 and come into force from
1st January 1909. The code extent to whole of India, except: the state of
Nagaland and tribal areas; provided that the state government
concerned may, be notification in the official gazette, extend the
provision of this code or any of them to the whole or part of the state of
Nagaland or such Tribal areas, as the case may be with such
supplemental, incidental or consequential notifications as may be
specified in the notification.
Scope of the Code:

The code is exhaustive on the matters specifically dealt with by it.
However, it is not exhaustive on the points not specifically dealt with
therein. The legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible
circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for
providing procedure for them. With regard to those matters, the court
has inherent power to act according to the principles of justice, equity
and good conscience.
The Code specifically provides that:

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the
inherent power to the court to make such orders as may be necessary
for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the courts.
The code is the general law. It does not affect the local or special law in
force. In the event of any conflict between the Code and special law, the
special law would prevail. However, the provision of the Code would
prevail if the local or special law is silent.
Scheme of the Code: the code of Civil Procedure comprises of two

parts:
i. The body of the Code and;
ii. The Schedule.
The body of the code containing 158 sections divide into 12 parts forms
the first part. The second part containing the rules and orders form the
schedule. The first part i.e. the body lays down the principles relating to
powers of the courts, while the second part i.e. the schedule provides for
the procedure, method, manner and mode in which the jurisdiction of the
courts may be exercised. Originally, there were five schedules I, II, III, IV
and V. but the Schedule II, III, IV and V were replaced by the
subsequent amendments of the Code. The first schedule contains 51
orders. Each order contains rules.
The number of rules vary from order to order. At the end of the rules,
there are 8 appendices relating to Forms/Model Formats viz.
a. Pleading (plaint and written statement)

b. Process
c. Discovery, Inspection and Admission
d. Decree
e. Execution
f. Supplemental proceedings
g. Appeal, Reference and Review and
h. Miscellaneous.
Salient features of the Code: there are following features:
1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is one of the most important

branches of the procedural law and regulates the procedure to be
adopted in all civil courts having jurisdiction in India. It came into
force from 1st January 1909.
2. It comprises of two parts viz. i) the body and; ii) the schedule. The
body contains 158 sections divided into 12 parts constitutes the
first part, while the schedule containing rules and orders form the
second part. The schedule contains 51 orders. Each order
contains rules.
3. The Code is a territorial law. It extends to the whole of India
except; the state of Nagaland and tribal areas; provided that the
state government \concerned may, be notification in the official
gazette, extend the provision of this code or any of them to the
whole or part of the state of Nagaland.
4. It is significant to note that the Code made the procedure in Civil
Courts very simple for enforcement of rights, liabilities and
obligations of the citizens. In other words, the code provides
mechanism for enforcement of substantive rights.
5. The code is the general law applicable to the proceedings of all
civil courts without prejudice to the local or special law in force. In
case of conflict, the special will prevail over the code. However, the
provisions of the court shall apply if the local or special law is
silent.
6. The Code has been amended several times. It was amended more
than 30 times during 1909- 1976. Recently it was amended in
1999
and 2002 vide the Court of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
1999 and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.
The acts of 1999 and 2002 i.e. the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment
(Act), 1999 and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002
came into force on the same day. The 1st July 2002.
The main object of the Acts is to ensure fair justice by eliminating

inordinate delay in disposal of the cases:
1. Summons served to the defendant within 30 days from the date of

filing of the suit.
2. The defendant through summons is required to appear before the
Court and answer the claim and submit file written statement 30
days. However, the Court may extend the period of filing written
statement up to 90 days.
3. The penalty for default/ denial/non-appearance in response to the
summon has been enhanced up to Rs. 5,000/-
4. If the decree for the payment of money is not executed, the
judgment debtor may be detained in civil prison for a period not
exceeding three months if the decree is for the payment of a sum
exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. The period of such detention is up to six
months if the amount payable is above 2,000/- and below 5,000/-
and no order for the detention in the civil prison in respect of the
default up to Rs. 2,000/-.
5. With regard to attachment in execution of a decree, salary up to
1,000/- and two thirds of the remaining salary beyond Rs. 1,000/-
shall not be liable to attachment.
6. Provision has been made for settlements of disputes outside the
Courts viz. Arbitration, conciliation, Mediation, Lok Adalats etc.
7. Provisions has been made to provide compensation up to Rs.
50,000/- to the defendant for the expenses incurred, loss or injury
included the loss of reputation caused to him against his arrest or
attachment of his property.
8. With regard to provision for the appeal:
i. No appeal shall lie against the decree or order if the subject

matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 1,000/-
ii. Where an appeal is heard and decided by a single judge of a
High Court from an original or appellate decree or order, no
further appeal shall be lie.
iii. No second appeal shall lie from any decree if the subject
matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not
exceeding Rs. 25,000/-.
9. The court may adjourn the framing of issues for a period not
exceeding seven days, while examining the witnesses or
examining the documents presented before the court.
10. A party to the suit shall not be granted more than three
adjournments during the hearing of the suit.
11. When a judge is not pronounced at once, the Court shall
endeavour to pronounce the judgment within 30 days from the
date of conclusion of the hearing. However, in certain exceptional
or under extraordinary circumstances, the court may fix a day
beyond 30 days but before 60 days from the date of conclusion of
the hearing.
CHAPTER II
SHORT HISTORY
Question No. 2.: - Give a short history of the Code of Civil

Procedure and briefly outline its scheme.
Here is a brief history of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
 Before 1859, there was no uniform codified law relating to the

procedure of civil courts in India.
 The first uniform Code of Civil Procedure was introduced in 1859
(Act/VIII of 1859), but it was not applicable to the supreme courts
and Sadar Diwani Adalats.
 After the passing of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, the Supreme
courts and Sadar Adalats were abolished and High Courts were
established in their place at Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta.
 The Code of 1859 was amended from time to time and was
replaced with the passing of the Code of Civil Procedure 1877.
 The Code of 1877 was amended in 1878 and 1879.
 In 1882, the third Code of Civil Procedure was enacted.
 The Code of Civil procedure, 1882 was amended several times
and ultimately the present Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was
passed.
Now, let’s outline its scheme:
 The Code of Civil Procedure comprises of two parts: The body of

the Code and The Schedule.
 The body of the code containing 158 sections divided into 12 parts
forms the first part.
 The second part contains the rules and orders form the schedule.
 The first part, containing substantive law, can be amended by the
Parliament whereas the second part, containing procedural law,
can be amended only by the High Courts.
 The main objective of this civil procedure code is to codify and
reform the laws that regulate practices and procedures in Indian
civil courts.
 The Code of Civil Procedure governs all proceedings and the
parties involved in civil courts until the execution of the decree or
order.
Question No. 3.: - State the main changes brought about by the
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 into the Code of
1908. What is their chief object?
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 brought about

several key changes to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Here are
some of the main changes:
1. Amendment of Section 39: A new sub-section was inserted stating

that nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the Court
which passed a decree to execute such decree against any person or
property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction.
2. Amendment of Section 64: This section was renumbered and a new
sub-section was inserted stating that nothing in this section shall
apply to any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of
any interest therein, made in pursuance of any contract for such
transfer or delivery entered into and registered before the attachment.
3. Substitution of Section 100A: A new section was substituted stating
that notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any
High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other
law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or
appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a
High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree
of such Single Judge.
4. Substitution of Section 102: A new section was substituted stating
that no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject
matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding
twenty-five thousand rupees.
5. Amendment of Order V: Changes were made in rule 1 of Order V.
The chief object of these changes introduced by the Code of Civil

Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 is the expeditious disposal of civil
cases. The Amendment Act of 2002 was enacted to reduce the delays
faced at the different levels of the litigation. It is one of the Parliamentary
efforts at making litigation in our country more effective and speedier.
OR
Overview
There are two types of law on the basis of nature, substantive laws and
procedural laws. Substantive laws are the laws which define the
principles related to the rights and liabilities (for instance, Indian Penal
Code, 1860 lays down the offences of punishable nature). On the
contrary, Procedural laws provide for the mechanism for the regulation
and enforcement of these rights and liabilities. They lay down the
procedure for the machinery in compliance with the enforcement of the
rights and liabilities (for instance, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908).
Law is dynamic. This means that law is subjected to the changes to

meet the demanding needs of the society to which it concerns. It is
subjected to changes to redress the balance. Though the law is
subjected to changes, the paramount principle of law on which it lies
upon is based on the Latin maxim “salus populi suprema lex
esto” which means “the good of the people shall be the supreme law”.
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002
The Code of Civil Procedure dates back to 1908 which governs the
entire spectrum of civil fraternity suits. From the date of its enforcement,
it has been amended many times for the speedy and expeditious trial of
the suits. Despite the radical changes in due course of time, the society
still faced the delaying issues due to humongous pending lawsuits in the
court. The Central Government initiated a step ahead to curtail down the
future situations and thus, introduced certain amendments to the Code.
Because of the delay in delivering justice experienced by the litigants at

various levels, the Parliament introduced the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2002.
The failure of the objective of The Amendment Act of 1999, i.e., speedy
and expeditious trial resulted in The Amendment Act of 2002 which was
enacted to reduce the delays faced at the different levels of the litigation.
It is one of the Parliamentary efforts at making litigation in our country
more effective and speedier. In the light of the Amendment Act of 1999
came the Amendment Act of 2002 which became effective from 1st July,
2002. After the long wait, the Parliament made some radical changes for
the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Code.
Arun Jaitley, introduced a new amendment Bill in 2002, taking into

account the suggestions made by bar representatives, political parties
and the Law Commissions. The Parliamentary Standing Committee
recommended the other changes. The new Bill was adopted by both the
Houses of Parliament in May, 2002. Following Presidential assent, the
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,2002 was notified and came
into effect.
Key Highlights of the Amendment Act, 2002
Transfer of Decree (Section: 39)
 Section 39 lays down the conditions under which a decree can

be sent.
 In dealing with an application for transfer of a decree to another
Court for execution two aspects must be kept in view, first, that a
decree-holder has a legal, not merely an equitable right to have
his decree transferred for execution, and secondly, at the same
time, that the section is not mandatory.
 But the Court is given a judicial discretion in the matter, as is
shown from the word “may” in the section. Thus if the demand
for transfer is lawful, the fact that the motive for the application
for transfer is to put pressure on one of the judgment-debtors is
no ground for refusing the application for transfer.
 The Government of India requested the Law Commission to
take a comprehensive revision of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. In January, 1998, the Commission took up the subject and
decided to do the exercise in two phases. In the first phase, the
Commission reviewed the amendments suggested by the Code
of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997. In the second phase
of the work, the Commission took up the revision of the entire
Code as a comprehensive revision of Code as the whole would
take longer time.
 On the recommendations of Law Commission made in 163rd
Report, headed by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, the present sub-section
(4) has been added to Section 39 to clarify that nothing in the
section shall be construed as authority the Court to execute a
decree against a person or property outside the local limits of its
jurisdiction.
 The question of consideration was that “the Section uses the
word “may” which led to a debate whether the Court sending the
decree to another Court is discretionary?”.
 It was recommended by the Law Commission that “the use of
“may” in Section 39 does not mean that the Court, which
passed the decree, can execute the decrees irrespective of
territorial limitations. The word “may” is meant for cases where
there are circumstances in which execution as such is
considered illegal. Another view would upset the entire scheme
of the Code as to jurisdiction. It seems desirable to clarify the
position by inserting an Explanation below Section 39 to provide
that nothing in the section shall be construed as an authority in
the Court to execute a decree against a person or property
outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. We recommend
accordingly”.
Private alienation of property after attachment to be void (Section:

64)
 Sub-section (2) has been added on the recommendations of the

Law Commission made in 54th Report, pages 51-52. As a result
of the amendment, a transfer made in pursuance of a registered
agreement shall override the attachment if the agreement
precedes the attachment.
 The Law Commission recommended that the following
exception should be added below Section 64:
“Exception – Nothing in this section applies to any private transfer or
delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein, made in
execution of any contract for such transfer or delivery entered into and
registered before the attachment”.
 By the Amendment Act of 2002, the Section was renumbered as

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) and the following shall be
inserted namely:
“(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any private transfer or delivery
of the property attached or of any interest therein, made in pursuance of
any contract for such transfer or delivery entered into and registered
before the attachment”.
 The legal spirit that lies behind this section is to prevent fraud on
the part of the decree-holders and secure the rights of the
attaching creditor against the attached property by prohibiting
private alienations pending attachments.
 It enacts the rule that a private alienation of property after
attachment is void as against claims enforceable under the
attachment.
 This section makes no distinction between attachment of
property before judgment is given and an attachment in
execution of a decree.
No further appeal in certain cases (Section 100A)
 The Section was substituted by the Amendment Act of 1999 for

the following:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High
Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other
law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an appellate
decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court,
no further appeal shall lie from the judgment, decision or order of such
Single Judge in such appeal or from any decree passed in such appeal”.
 The present section has been substituted for

the substituted Section 100A, by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act,2002.
 As a result of the 2002 Act, appeals to division Bench of the
High Courts in writs under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution have been restored.
 The net result of the 1999 and 2002 Amendment is that where
any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard
and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further
appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single
Judge; appeals to Division Bench of the High Court in such
cases has been abolished.
 Though this substitution raised many prenotions, it widened the
scope of Section 100A so far as a restriction on the right of
further appeal is concerned.
No second appeal in certain cases (Section 102)
 The Amendment Act of 1999 substituted the section for the

following:
“No second appeal lies in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of
Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the
original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees”.
 Though the critics had been pointed out that it would foreclose
second appeals where a substantive question of law was
involved.
 The Amendment Act of 2002 has corrected this distortion and
the present section has been substituted for the following:
“No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject-matter of
the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five
thousand rupees”.
 Prior to both the Amendment Acts, the second appeal in every

suit of the cognizable nature was barred by Courts of Small
Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the
original suit did not exceed three thousand rupees.
 The second appeal was abolished by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 in all cases where the value
of the subject matter in the suit does not exceed rupees twenty-
five thousand.
 The Amendment Act of 2002 has changed the scenario and now
no second appeal lie in money suits where the subject matter of
the suit does not exceed rupees twenty-five thousand.
Issue and Service of Summons (Order V)
 Order V of the Code provides for issue and service of summons.

The Malimath Committee looked into the problem of the shortfall
of cases in the Courts and recommended amendments to the
Code intending to lay down a fixed time frame within which
pleadings can be completed.
 The Amendment Act of 2002 amended Rule 1 [Summons], Rule
9 [Delivery of summons by Court] and Rule 9A [Summons given
to the plaintiff for service] of Order V.
 The effect of substituted sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 is that summons
are required to be issued to the defendant for appearance and
answering the claim of the plaintiff on institution of a suit by the
plaintiff set out in the plaint by filing written statement of his
defence within 30 days from the day of the institution of the suit
except in a few situations.
 The first proviso to the sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 provides that no
summons are required to be issued when the defendant has
appeared at the presentation of the plaint and admitted the
plaintiff’s claim.
 The second proviso to the substituted sub-rule (1) of Rule 1
provides that if the defendant does not file the written statement
within 30 days of the presentation of the plaint, he may be
allowed to file the same, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
which shall not exceed ninety days from the date of service of
summons.
 Rule 9 of Order V was substituted by Rules 9 and 9A of the
Amendment Act of 2002.
 Sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 prescribes two different
situations as to the delivery of the summons to the defendant.
Firstly, if the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the
Courtin which the suit is instituted or his agent, the summon
shall be delivered by the proper officer or such courier services
as are approved by the Court. Secondly, if the defendant resides
outside the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted,
the Court may direct the service of summon by delivering the
copy by speed post or by such courier services as are approved
by the High Court or by any other means of transmission of
documents including fax message or electronic mail service,
which shall be made at the expenses of the plaintiff (Proviso to
sub-rule (3).
 Sometimes, the defendant or his agent refuses or intentionally
neglects the delivery of the summon which leads to delay in
service of summons. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 curbs this situation
and states that if the Court receives an acknowledgement or any
other receipt purporting to be signed by the defendant or his
agent endorsed by the postal employee that defendant or his
agent has refused to take the delivery of the postal or had
refused to take accept the summon when tendered to him, the
Court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had
been duly served on the defendant.
 The Registered Post Acknowledgement Due can also make the
service of summon.
 Rule 9 empowers the High Court or the District Court to prepare
a panel of the courier agencies for service of summons.
 To avoid the delay in delivery of summons, the Court
empowered the plaintiff for the service of summons under Rule
9A. It states that the Court, in addition to Rule 9, on an
application of plaintiff may allow him service of summon for the
appearance of the defendant.
 Such service of summon by the plaintiff shall be effected by
delivery of summon to the defendant personally a copy signed
by the Judge and sealed with the seal of the Court or any mode
of service prescribed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 9.
Pleading Generally (Order VI)
 Rule 17 [Amendment of pleadings] and Rule 18 [Failure to

amend after order] were substituted by Code of Civil Procedure
 By the Amendment Act of 2002, the provision has been restored
in Rule 17. The provision for the amendment has been given
back to the Court with certain limitations. A new provision has
been added to the rule, namely that no application for
amendment of the pleadings shall be allowed after the trial has
commenced unless the Court concludes that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.
 Thus, after the trial of the case has been commenced, no
application for amendment of the pleadings shall be allowed
unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.
 The principal object of the rule is that the Courts should get at
and try the merits of the case that comes before them and
should consequently allow all the amendments that may be
necessary for determining the real question in controversy
between the parties without causing injustice to the other side.
 By the Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, Rule
18 was omitted. By Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
2002, the old Rule 18 verbatim has been restored.
 Rule 18 states that if a party who has obtained an order for
leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time
limited for the purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby
limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he
shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such
limited period or of such fourteen days, unless the time is
extended by the Court.
Plaint (Order VII)
 By Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, Rule 9

[Procedure on admitting plaint], Rule 11 [Rejection of plaint] and
Rule 14 [Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies
of Order VII were amended and Rule 18 [Inadmissibility of
document not produced when plaint filed] was omitted.
 Unde the new rule 9, the Court will direct the plaintiff to present
copies of the plaint within a period of seven days from the date
of the order along with the requisite process fee for service on
the defendant(s). Under the old rule, no time limit was
prescribed.
 The new rule intended to expedite the delay, which the plaintiff
often caused in taking steps for the service of summons on the
defendant. Further under the old rule, there was provision
requiring the plaintiff to endorse on the plaint or to annex
thereto, the list of the documents which he had filed along with
the plaint, or instead of copy of the plaint could file concise
statements of the nature of the claim made or the relief claimed
in the suit with the prior of the Court, which the Court would
permit by reason of the length of the plaint or the number of the
defendants or for any other sufficient reasons.
 Under the new rule 9, both these provisions have been omitted
as found unnecessary just to cut short the delays in the trail of
the cases.
 In Rule 11, for sub-clause (f) and (g) as inserted by Amendment
Act of 1999 was substituted, namely-
“(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9”.
 The clause (f) enabled the court to reject the plaint where the
plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII.
 Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 was substituted meaning thereby that
the documents may be produced by the plaintiff which ought to
be produced during the presentation of a plaint or to be entered
in the list or annexed to the plaint, with the leave of the Court, at
the time of the hearing of the suit.
 The Amendment Act of 2002 omitted Rule 18.
Written Statement, Set-Off and Counter-Claim (Order VIII)
 Rule 1 [Written Statement], Rule 1A [Duty of defendant to

produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon
by him], Rule 9 [Subsequent pleadings] and Rule 10 [Procedure
when party fails to present written statement called for by Court]
were amended.
 In Rule 1, the defendant shall present the written statement
within thirty days from the date of service of summon. By 2002
Amendment Act, the defendant may file written statement
thereafter with the permission of the Court but not beyond ninety
days where the Court for the reasons to be recorded in writing
has extended this period.
 Thus, now a defendant can file a written statement within thirty
days from the date of service of summon but such time period
can be extended up to ninety days by the Court for the reasons
to be recorded in writing.
 Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A was substituted by the Amendment Act,
2002. Rule 1A was added by the Amendment Act of 1999 and
further amended by Amendment Act, 2002.
 It states that a document which ought to be produced in Court
by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall
not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on
his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Nothing in this rule shall
apply to documents – (a) produced for the cross-examination of
the plaintiff’s witness, or (b) handed over a witness merely to
refresh his memory.
 Rule 9 was restored by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2002 in the same form verbatim except for
the addition of the words “of not more than thirty days” after the
words “and fix a time” and before the words “for presenting the
same” appearing at the end of the rule. The effect of the change
is that subsequent pleadings shall be continued to be filed and
the Court shall fix the time for presenting the same, which shall
be not more than thirty days.
 Rule 10 which was omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999 was substituted by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. It states that where any
party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or
Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or
fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall
pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation
to the suit as it thinks fit and on pronouncement of such
judgment a decree shall be drawn up.
Appearance of Parties and Consequence of Non-Appearance

(Order IX)
 Rule 2 [Dismissal of suit where summons not served in

consequences of plaintiff’s failure to pay costs]
was substituted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
2002.
 It states that where on the day fixed it is found that the
summons has not been served upon the defendant in
consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the Court-fee or
postal charges, if any, chargeable for such service or failure to
present copies of the plaint as required by Rule 9 of Order VII,
the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed.
 The proviso to the rule states that no such order shall be made,
if notwithstanding such failure, the defendant attends in person
or by agent when he is allowed to appear by agent on the day
fixed for him to appear and answer.
Settlement of Issues and Determination of Suit on Issues of Law or
on Issues agreed upon (Order XIV)
 Rule 5 [Power to amend, and strike out issues]

was substituted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
2002.
 Rule 5 was omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999 which was restored verbatim by the
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.
 Rule 5 lays down provisions for amending the issues, framing
additional issues, and striking out issues in the course of the trial
of a suit.
 It states that the Court may at any time before the passing a
decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such
terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional
issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in
controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. It
further states that the Court may also, at any time before
passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be
wrongly framed or introduced.
 A court trying a civil suit has inherent power to take cognizance
of questions going to the root of the subject-matter in
controversy between the parties at any stage of the trial. But
before doing so, the Court must frame and record issues on
such questions.
 The power of the Court is subject to Rule 3 of this Order. Thus,
the rule does not enable the re-opening of issues already
closed.
Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witness (Order XVIII)
 Rule 2 [Statement and production of evidence] and Rule 4

[Recording of evidence] were amended by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.
 Sub-rule 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D of Rule 2 were inserted by Code of
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.
 Sub-rule 3A of Rule 2 states that any party may address oral
arguments in a case, and shall, before he concludes the oral
arguments, if any, submit if the Court so permits concisely and
under distinct headings written arguments in support of his case
to the Court and such written arguments shall form part of the
record.
 Sub-rule 3B of Rule 2 states that a copy of written arguments
shall be simultaneously furnished to the opposite party.
 Sub-rule 3C of Rule 2 states that no adjournment shall be
granted for the purpose of filing the written arguments unless
the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers it
necessary to grant such adjournment.
 Sub-rule 3D of Rule 2 states that the Court shall fix such limits
for the oral arguments by either of the parties in a case, as it
thinks fit.
 Thus, a time limit for oral arguments may be fixed by the Court
and with the leave of the Court, the parties may be required to
submit written arguments before concluding the oral arguments
in the case. Ordinarily, no adjournments shall be granted for the
purpose of submitting written arguments, unless the Court for
the reasons to be recorded in writing considers it necessary to
do so.
 Rule 4 was substituted by Code of Civil Procedure
 In nutshell, Rule 4 states that the examination-in-chief of a
witness shall be recorded on an affidavit. The Commissioner
can conduct and record cross-examination and re-examination
of a witness in the High Courts having original jurisdiction and in
Courts subordinate to the High Court. Such evidence shall be
recorded either by the Court or by the Commissioner appointed
by it.
 The Commissioner also possesses the power of recording the
demeanour of a witness and any objection made in regard to
such matter shall be decided by the Court at the time of
arguments of the case.
 A commissioner is under the obligation of submitting his report
within six months from the date of the issue of the Commission.
 The court may fix the amount to be paid as remuneration for the
services of the Commissioner.
Judgment and Decree (Order XX)
 Rule 1 was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure

 Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 was substituted by the Code of Civil
 It states that the Court, after the case has been heard, shall
pronounce judgment in an open Court, either at once, or as
soon thereafter as may be practicable and when the judgment is
to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day
for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the
parties or their pleaders.
 The proviso to the sub-rule states that where the judgment is not
pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the
Court to pronounce the judgment within thirty days from the date
on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is
not practicable so to do on the ground of the exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Court shall fix a
future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day
shall not ordinarily be a day beyond sixty days from the date on
which the hearing of the case was concluded, and due notice of
the day to fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.
 In other words, there is a definite time frame for the
pronouncement of the judgments after a case has been heard.
The general rule is that a judgment is to be pronounced at once
and where it is not practicable to do so, the Court shall make an
endeavour to pronounce judgment within thirty days from the
date on which the hearing of the case was concluded.
 Where it is not practicable for the Court to pronounce judgment
within thirty days because of exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances of the case, the Court shall fix a day for the
pronouncement of judgment which should not be beyond sixty
days from the date on which the case was heard.
Execution of Decrees and Orders (Order XXI)
 Rule 32 and Rule 92 were amended by the Code of Civil

 An Explanation was inserted under sub-rule (5) of Rule 32. It
states that “For the removal of doubts, the expression “the act
required to be done” covers both prohibitory as well as
mandatory injunctions.
 A controversy arose as to the meaning of the words “required to
be done” in sub-rule (5) of Rule 32. Do these words covered the
situation where a prohibitory injunction has been incorporated in
the decree, or are they confined to cases where the decree is a
mandatory one. Different High courts have expressed different
views on the subject. The controversy has been resolved by the
present explanation added which adopts a wider view.
 In sub-rule (2) of Rule 92, the words “thirty days” was
substituted by “sixty days”.
 After the first proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 92, the following
proviso was inserted:
“Provided further that the deposit under this sub-rule may be made
within sixty days in all such cases where the period of thirty days, within
which the deposit had to be made, has not expired before the
commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.
 The amendment in Rule 92 has been made on the

recommendations of the Law Commission made in the 139th
Report (Page No. 08) to bring harmony between sub-rule (2) of
Rule 92 and Article 127 of The Indian Limitation Act, 1963. The
period for making deposit under sub-rule (2) of Rule 92 before
the present amendment was thirty days, while under Article 127
of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for making the
application to set aside an execution sale (which has to be
accompanied by the deposit in Court of requisite amount) is
sixty days.
Constitutional Validity of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002
 In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, the writ

petition had been filed by Advocate T. Raja seeking to challenge
the Amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by
Amendment Act, 2002.
 A three-judge bench comprising the Chief Justice B.N. Kirpal,
Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice Arijit Pasayat held that “We
do not find that the amended provisions are in any way ultra
vires the Constitution’”.
 The judge’s attention was drawn to the various provisions of the
amended Sections and Orders of the Code of Civil Procedure
 It was observed that “In court’s opinion amendments are
constitutionally valid and if any difficulties are still faced, these
can be placed before the Committee. The Committee would
consider the said difficulties and make important suggestions in
its report.
 The Bench said that keeping in mind the increasing number of
litigation and the limited number of judges, the amendments are
imperative in resolving the litigation at an early date.
Conclusion
 “The power of judicial discretion comes along with the action of

arbitrariness”.
 These judicial decisions result in the unnecessary delays. The
Amendment Act of 2002 laid down several time limits that
bounds the plaintiff as well as the defendant at each stage of the
litigation. These limitations resulted in speeding up the litigation
process.
 The conceptualisation of the idea of evidence via affidavits as
well as the introduction of the court-appointed commissioner
also resulted achieving the objectivity of this Amendment Act,
i.e., speedy and expeditious justice.
 The lagging behind of the judicial system due to unnecessary
adjournments now can be dealt adequately with the limit
imposed and by the provision of imposing costs including
punitive costs.
 The failure on the part of courts for providing adequate and
easily accessible to justice is one of the principal causes of
widespread dissatisfaction with the administration of justice.
 The concept of “access to justice’ has undergone significant
transformation. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
2002 aims to provide for speedy and effectual justice.
Question No. 3.: - State the main changes brought about by the
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 into the Code of
1908. What is their chief object?
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 brought about

several significant changes to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Here
are some of the key amendments:
1. Amendment of Section 39: A new sub-section was inserted

stating that nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the
Court which passed a decree to execute such decree against any
person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction.
2. Amendment of Section 64: A new sub-section was inserted
stating that nothing in this section shall apply to any private
transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest
therein, made in pursuance of any contract for such transfer or
delivery entered into and registered before the attachment.
3. Substitution of new section for Section 100A: A new section
was substituted stating that where any appeal from an original or
appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge
of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and
decree of such Single Judge.
4. Substitution of new section for Section 102: A new section was
substituted stating that no second appeal shall lie from any decree,
when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of
money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.
5. Amendment of Order V: Changes were made in rule 1 of Order
V.
The chief object of these changes introduced by the Code of Civil

Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 was the expeditious disposal of civil
cases. The Amendment Act of 2002 was enacted to reduce the delays
faced at the different levels of the litigation. It was one of the
Parliamentary efforts at making litigation in our country more effective
and speedier.
Question No. 4: - The prime object of the changes introduced by

the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 is expeditious
disposal of civil cases. Comment and underline such changes. Do
you think that these changes are likely to go a long way in
achieving the said object?
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 was indeed

introduced with the primary objective of ensuring the expeditious
disposal of civil cases. The amendment was a response to the significant
delays experienced by litigants at various levels, and it represented an
effort by the Parliament to make litigation in India more effective and
speedier.
Key changes introduced by the Amendment Act, 2002 include:
 Amendment of Section 39: This amendment restricts the Court

which passed a decree from executing such decree against any
person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction.
 Amendment of Section 64: This amendment excludes any private
transfer or delivery of the attached property or any interest therein,
made in pursuance of any contract for such transfer or delivery
entered into and registered before the attachment.
 Substitution of new section for Section 100A: This new section
stipulates that no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and
decree of a Single Judge of a High Court.
 Substitution of new section for Section 102: This new section
stipulates that no second appeal shall lie from any decree when the
subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not
exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.
 Amendment of Order V: This amendment introduces changes to the
First Schedule of the principal Act.
These changes were designed to cut short delays in the disposal of suits
and make provisions more stringent. The Amendment Act also aimed to
give more power to Civil Courts.
As to whether these changes are likely to go a long way in achieving the

said object, it’s important to note that while the amendments have
certainly introduced mechanisms for faster resolution of cases, the
effectiveness of these changes ultimately depends on their
implementation. The amendments provide the necessary framework for
expeditious disposal of cases, but the actual impact on the speed of
case disposal can vary based on factors such as the efficiency of the
courts, the nature of the cases, and the actions of the parties involved.
In conclusion, while the Amendment Act, 2002 has the potential to
significantly improve the speed of civil case disposal, its success in
achieving this goal depends on a variety of factors beyond the legislation
itself.
CHAPTER III
DEFINITIONS
Question No. 5: -
(a) Define a ‘decree’ and point out the distinction between a

‘decree’ and an ‘order’. Is there any difference between ‘decree’
and ‘judgment’ as well?
Let’s break down these legal terms:
1. Decree: A decree is an official order or decision, usually having

the force of law. It’s a formal expression of adjudication by which
the court determines the rights of parties regarding the matter in
controversy or dispute. It can be preliminary, final, or partly
preliminary and partly final.
2. Order: An order is the formal expression of any decision of a civil
court which is not a decree. It’s always final3 and it ascertains the
procedural rights of the parties.
3. Judgment: A judgment is the statement given by the judge on the
grounds of a decree or order. It’s the reasoning given by the court
in order to support the decision. A judgment is always made prior
to a decree and a decree is based upon judgment.
Here are the key differences between these terms:
 Decree vs Order: A decree is passed in a suit instituted upon

presenting a plaint, while an order is passed in a suit that may be
instituted upon the presentation of either a plaint, an application, or
a petition. A decree ascertains the substantive rights and duties of
the parties, while an order ascertains the procedural rights of the
parties.
 Decree vs Judgment: A decree is the formal expression of
conclusions arrived at in the judgment. A judgment is always made
prior to a decree and a decree is based upon judgment.
(b) Are the following decisions decrees? If so, why? If not, why
not?
(i) A decision on a preliminary issue that the suit is within

limitation.
In the context of Indian law, a decree is defined under Section 2(2) of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). It is the formal expression of an
adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively
determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the
matters in controversy in the suit.
Given this definition,
A decision on a preliminary issue that the suit is within limitation: Yes,
this can be considered a decree. It conclusively determines a
right/obligation of the parties i.e., the right to proceed with the suit.
(ii) An admission or rejection of an application or leave to sue in

forma pauperis (as an indigent person).
An admission or rejection of an application or leave to sue in forma

pauperis (as an indigent person): No, this is not a decree. It is merely a
procedural order and does not conclusively determine the rights of the
parties.
(iii) A determination of question between the parties relating to the

execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.
A determination of question between the parties relating to the
execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree: Yes, this is a decree
as it conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to the
execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.
(iv) An order returning a plaint for presentation to the proper court.
An order returning a plaint for presentation to the proper court: No, this is
not a decree. It is a procedural order and does not conclusively
determine the rights of the parties.
(v) An order by a court in the exercise of its inherent power to
punish for contempt of court.
An order by a court in the exercise of its inherent power to punish for
contempt of court: No, this is not a decree. It is an order passed by the
court in exercise of its inherent powers and does not conclusively
determine the rights of the parties in a suit.
Question No. 6
(a) In what class of cases is a preliminary decree passed? What is

the difference between preliminary decree and a final decree? State
giving reasons whether the following are preliminary or final
decrees: -
(i) A sues B for cancellation of a document and a decree is passed.
A preliminary decree is passed in cases where the court believes that

further proceedings are necessary to finally dispose of the suit. It
conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any
of the matters in controversy in the suit. A final decree, on the other
hand, completely disposes of the suit, settling all the matters in dispute
between the parties.
The decree passed when A sues B for cancellation of a document is

a final decree. This is because the cancellation of a document does not
require any further proceedings once the decree is passed.
(ii) A suit is brought by one partner against another for a

dissolution of partnership and for taking partnership account.
In a suit brought by one partner against another for dissolution of

partnership and for taking partnership account, a preliminary decree is
usually passed. This is because after the court determines the rights of
the parties (i.e., dissolution of partnership), further proceedings (i.e.,
taking partnership account) are necessary to finally dispose of the suit.
(iii) A sues B for recovery of possession of certain immovable

property and for mesne profits.

When A sues B for recovery of possession of certain immovable

property and for mesne profits, the decree passed is a final decree. This
is because once the court has adjudicated on the rights of the parties
(i.e., recovery of possession and award of mesne profits), no further
proceedings are necessary.
(b)
(i) Write the procedure by which a decree can be transferred to

another court for execution and point out the power of the court to
which the decree has been sent for execution.
To transfer a decree for execution, the party seeking transfer must file an
application with the court that passed the decree. The application must
state the reasons for the transfer and the court to which the decree is
sought to be transferred. If the court is satisfied with the reasons for the
transfer, it will issue a transfer order. The court to which the decree is
sent for execution shall have the same powers in executing such decree
as if it had been passed by itself.
(ii) A had a decree for money against B which he got transferred

from Banaras to Kanpur for execution. Can Kanpur Court grant B
instalment?
The executing court, in this case, the Kanpur Court, does not have the
power to grant instalments for the payment of the decree amount. This
power lies with the court that passed the decree,i.e., Banaras court.
Question No. 7. Is an order making variation in shares specified in

the preliminary decree passed in a partition suit a decree in itself
and liable to appeal? What is the combined effect of an order
passed in execution proceedings?
Yes, an order making variation in shares specified in the preliminary

decree passed in a partition suit is considered a decree in itself and is
liable to appeal. This means that if an event transpires after the
preliminary decree which necessitates a change in shares, the court can
and should make the necessary adjustments. If there is a dispute
regarding this, the court’s order deciding that dispute and making
variation in shares specified in the preliminary decree already passed is
considered a decree.
As for the combined effect of an order passed in execution proceedings,

it’s important to understand that execution is the process of enforcing or
giving effect to the judgment of the court. Once a decree or judgment is
passed by the court, it is the obligation of the person against whom the
judgment is passed (judgment-debtor), to give effect to the decree so as
to enable the decree-holder to enjoy the benefits of the judgment. The
term ‘execution’ refers to the enforcement of the final decision or final
step that has to be followed, as directed by the Judge. Therefore, the
combined effect of an order passed in execution proceedings is to
ensure that the judgment-debtor complies with the court’s decree or
order.
Question No. 8.
(a) What do you understand by the terms: -
(i) Legal Representative:
A legal representative is a person who represents or stands in the place

of another under authority recognized by law, especially with respect to
the other’s property or interests. This can include a personal
representative or an agent having legal status.
especially: one acting under a power of attorney.
(ii) Mesne Profits:
Mesne profits refer to the damages or compensation recoverable from a

person who has been in wrongful possession of immovable property. It is
a mode of compensation facilitating remedy to the aggrieved party
refraining the wrongful possessor from enjoying profits derived from such
property.
The three significant takeaways from Section 2(12) of the Code have
been laid down hereunder;
1.It is to note that the definition has attached importance to due diligence
for obtaining mesne profits.
2.Mesne profits can only be awarded if the property in concern was

unlawfully occupied thereby depriving the original owner of his rights.
3.Interest is a fundamental part of mesne profits under Section 2(12).
(iii) Public Officer:
A public officer is a person who has been legally elected or appointed to

office and who exercises governmental functions.
(iv) ex parte decree:
An ‘Ex parte decree’ is a decree passed against a defendant in

absentia. Despite service of summons, where on the date of hearing
only the plaintiff appears and a defendant does not appear, the court
may hear the suit ex parte and pass a decree against the defendant.
(b) For what period of time are mesne profits recoverable? On what
principle are they calculated? Illustrate.
Mesne profits are recoverable for a period of three years. The time of
limitation begins to run when the profits are received.
The principle of calculating mesne profits is based on the profits which

the person in wrongful possession actually received or might with
ordinary diligence have received from the property. This includes interest
on such profits, but does not include profits due to improvements made
by the person in wrongful possession.
The court determines the quantum of mesne profits based on several

factors:
1. Nature and Condition of the property

2. Location of the property
3. Value of the property
4. The actual profit gained by the possessor or what they
reasonably might have received with the use of the said property.
For example, if a person wrongfully possesses a property for three

years, the original owner can claim mesne profits for that period. The
amount would be calculated based on the actual or potential profits the
wrongful possessor could have made from the property during that time,
along with interest on those profits. However, any profits resulting from
improvements made by the wrongful possessor would not be included.
(b) Are the following officers public officers?
(i) Government Advocate remunerated by daily fees.
Yes, a Government Advocate remunerated by daily fees is considered a

public officer. They are appointed by the government and their role
involves representing the government in legal matters.
(ii) An officer of the Indian Staff Corps.
Yes, an officer of the Indian Staff Corps is considered a public

officer. They are appointed by the government and serve in the Indian
Army.
(iii) An officer of the Indian Army.
Yes, an officer of the Indian Army is considered a public officer. They are
appointed by the government and serve in the Indian Army.
(iv) A Receiver in insolvency.
Yes, a Receiver in insolvency is considered a public officer. They are

appointed by the court to administer the affairs of bankrupts and wound-
up companies.
(v) A Receiver appointed in a suit.
Yes, a Receiver appointed in a suit is considered a public officer. They

are appointed by the court to protect and preserve the subject matter of
the suit during its pendency.
(vi) A Municipal Commissioner.

Yes, a Municipal Commissioner is considered a public officer. They are
appointed by the state government to head the administrative staff of the
municipal corporation.
Question No. 9 What is Foreign Judgment? Are they conclusive?

Are they binding on the parties in India?
A Foreign Judgment, as defined under Section 2 (6) of the Code of
Civil Procedure in India, refers to the judgment of a foreign court. It is an
adjudication by a foreign court on a matter before it.
Foreign Judgments are generally conclusive as to any matter directly

adjudicated on by it between the same parties or between parties who
claim to litigate under the same title. However, a foreign judgment must
pass the conclusiveness test under Section 13 of the Code of Civil
Procedure before it can be enforced.
As for whether they are binding in India, a foreign judgment is

enforceable by an Indian court and acts as res judicata (a matter judged
or a thing decided) between the parties. However, there are certain
exceptions where a foreign judgment is not binding in India. These
include situations where the judgment is not by a competent court, not
given on the merits of the case, against international or Indian law, or
opposed to natural justice. Thus, for a foreign court’s decision to be
binding on the parties in India, it must be rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
Question No. 10 Which legislative and regulatory provisions govern

the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in your
jurisdiction?
In India, there have been no states with various administrative regimes

for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The Code,
which is the main legislation, is uniformly applicable all across the
country.
There are three primary sources of law about the enforcement of

foreign judgments in India:
1.Laws passed by the parliament (i.e. the Code): Section 44A of the
Code explains the constitutional principle that the judgment handed
down by a Superior Court of the Reciprocating Territory (as previously
highlighted Government within Official Gazette) is implemented in India
as though it were a ruling enacted by the Indian District Courts. That
being said, a judgment emerging from a non-reciprocating territory
cannot be immediately mandated in the same way and a fresh case
should be issued for its regulation in which such a judgment is of only
evidentiary value. Also, it may well be noted that both of the
classifications of judgments referred to above are needed to comply with
the terms set out in Section 13 of the Code, which offers that a foreign
judgment is definitive. However, Section 14 of the Code gives rise to a
supposition in pursuit of the authority of the foreign court making the
judgment in question.
2.Bilateral treaties with the reciprocating countries concerning

recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments to which India is a
party; and
3.Judicial precedents: the landmark case of Moloji Nar Singh Rao v

Shankar Saran reads that a foreign judgment not emanating from a
superior court of a reciprocating territory cannot be executed in India
without the filing of a new suit in which the said judgment has only
evidentiary value.
One of the fundamental requirements of recognition is that a

foreign judgment must not be inconclusive under the Code.
According to Section 13 of the Code, a foreign judgment will be
inconclusive if it:
1.is pronounced by a court that was not of competent jurisdiction;
2.is not given on the merits of the case;
3.appears to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a

refusal to recognize Indian law (where applicable);
4.violates principles of natural justice;
5.is obtained by fraud; or

6.sustains a claim founded on a breach of Indian law.
The Code presumes in favour of the competency of the jurisdiction

of the foreign court unless proved to the contrary. The landmark
judgment of Ramanathan Chettyar and Another v Kalimuthu Pillay
and Another elucidates the following circumstances in which the
foreign court is said to have competent jurisdiction:
1.where the defendant is a subject of the country in which the judgment

was passed;
2.where the defendant is a resident of the country in which the action

was commenced;
3.where the defendant has in a previous case filed a suit in the same
forum;
4.where the defendant has voluntarily appeared; or
5.where the defendant has contracted to submit itself to the jurisdiction

of the foreign court.
Recognition of a foreign judgment also depends upon the conditions of

reciprocity, which are the foundation of international treaties governing
the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in India.
Question No. 11 Define the terms: Foreign Judgement, Foreign

Court, Judge, Judgement, Judgment Debtor, Decree Holder, Legal
Representative, Pleader and District.
1.Foreign Judgement: A foreign judgement refers to the judgement of a

foreign court. It’s defined under Section 2 (6) of the Code of Civil
Procedure and is the judgement of a court situated outside India.
The term foreign judgments defined under Section 2 (6) of the code of
civil procedure means the judgment of a foreign court, and Section-13 of
the code provides the criteria with the code for recognition of a foreign
judgment and is a pre-condition to any enforcement proceedings unless
a foreign judgment passes the conclusiveness test under Section 13 of
the Code of Civil Procedure Code, it cannot be enforced.
2.Foreign Court: A foreign court is a court situated outside India and not
established or continued by the authority of the central government.
“Foreign court” defined under Section 2 (5) means court outside India
and not established or continued by the authority of the central
government. Criminal procedure code sections that deal with foreign
judgment are Sections 13, Section 14, and Section 44. Section 13
embodies the principles of private international law that a Court will not
enforce a foreign judgment if the judgment is not that of a competent
court. The rules laid down under Section 13 are substantive law, as well,
along with being that of procedural law.
3.Judge: A judge is a person who is in charge of a trial in a court of law

and decides how a person who is guilty of a crime should be punished,
or who makes decisions on legal matters.
4.Judgement: A judgement is an opinion or decision that is based on

careful thought. It can also be a formal decision given by a court.
5.Judgment Debtor: A judgment debtor is a person or company that is

ordered by a court of law to pay money to another person or company.
A party against which an unsatisfied court decision is awarded; a person
who is obligated to satisfy a court decision.
The term judgment debtor describes a party against which a court has m
ade a monetary award.
6.Decree Holder: A decree holder is any person in whose favour a
decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been
made.
Decree holder- According to Section 2(3) of CPC, 1908, “decree-holder”

means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an
order capable of execution has been made.
In Dhani Ram v. Lala Sri Ram 1980 AIR 157, the court held that the
decree-holder need not necessarily be the plaintiff. A person who is not
a party to suit but in whose favour an order capable of execution has
been passed is also a decree-holder.
Order XXI Rule 16 CPC deals with an application for execution by the
transferee of a decree. Such a person also comes within the expression
‘holder of a decree’. The expression ‘holder of a decree’ in Order XXI
Rule 10 CPC takes in parties other than those whose names appear on
the decree. Likewise, a legal representative of the decree-holder, though
his name may not be inscribed in the decree, can execute it as provided
in the CPC. A transferee is also entitled to execute the decree.
The sum and substance of the legal principles to be borne in mind

regarding the terms ‘decree holder’ and ‘holder of a decree’ can be
stated like this. The term ‘decree holder’ denotes a person
1.in whose favour a decree has been passed
2.in whose favour an order capable of execution has been passed and
3.whose name appears in the decree, either as plaintiff or defendant,

and the following conditions are satisfied:
a) the decree must be one capable of execution and
b) the said person, by the terms of the decree itself or from its nature,
should be legally entitled to seek its execution.
7.Legal Representative: A legal representative is an individual

authorized by law to act on behalf of someone else, particularly in
managing their property or interests.
8.Pleader: A pleader is a person who pleads, especially at law.

9.District: A district is an area of a country or town that has fixed
borders that are used for official purposes, or that has a particular
feature that makes it different from surrounding areas. A territorial
division (as for administrative or electoral purposes)
Question No. 12
a) Is there any presumption regarding a foreign judgment?
Yes, there is a presumption regarding a foreign judgment.
According to Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code in India, the court

shall presume, upon the production of any document purporting to be a
certified copy of a foreign judgment, that such judgment was pronounced
by a court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the
record.
However, this presumption may be displaced by proving want of

jurisdiction. This means that the burden of proof lies on the party
challenging the jurisdiction of the foreign court; but such presumption
may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.
b) What are the circumstances in which a foreign judgement is not

conclusive?
A foreign judgment is not conclusive under the following circumstances

according to Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908:
1.Incompetent Jurisdiction: The judgment has not been pronounced

by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
2.Lack of Merit Consideration: The judgment has not been given on

the merits of the case.
3.Incorrect View of International Law: The judgment appears on the
face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of
international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in cases in
which such law is applicable.
4.Opposition to Natural Justice: The proceedings in which the

judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice.
5.Obtained by Fraud: The judgment has been obtained by fraud.
6.Breach of Indian Law: The judgment sustains a claim founded on a

breach of any law in force in India.
CHAPTER IV
SUITS IN GENERAL
Question No. 13
(a) What do you understand by a suit of a Civil nature?
A “suit of civil nature” is a legal term used in the context of civil litigation.
It refers to a legal action that falls within the realm of civil law and is
governed by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in India.
The Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, is a vital legislation in India that
governs the procedural aspects of civil litigation. A “suit” is a legal action
initiated by one party against another seeking a resolution of a civil
dispute. The CPC classifies various types of suits as “suits of civil
nature.”
Meaning and Scope of Suits of Civil Nature
The CPC defines a suit as a civil proceeding initiated by the presentation

of a plaint or a written statement before a court of law. A “suit of civil
nature” refers to a legal action that falls within the realm of civil law and
is governed by the CPC. Civil law encompasses a wide range of
disputes, including those related to property, contracts, torts, family law,
etc.
The scope of suits of civil nature under the CPC is extensive and covers
various types of civil disputes. These may include suits for recovery of
money, suits for specific performance of contracts, suits for declaration
of rights, suits for injunctions, suits for partition of property, suits for
damages, and many others. The CPC provides a procedural framework
for conducting these suits, ensuring that civil disputes are resolved
through a systematic and fair legal process.
Here are some key points about a suit of civil nature:
1.Definition: The CPC defines a suit as a civil proceeding initiated by

the presentation of a plaint or a written statement before a court of law.
2.Scope: Civil law encompasses a wide range of disputes, including

those related to property, contracts, torts, family law, etc. The scope of
suits of civil nature under the CPC is extensive and covers various types
of civil disputes.
3.Types: These may include suits for recovery of money, suits for
specific performance of contracts, suits for declaration of rights, suits for
injunctions, suits for partition of property, suits for damages, and many
others.
Types of Suits of Civil Nature
The CPC classifies suits of civil nature into different categories based on
the nature of the dispute. Some of the common types of suits of civil
nature under the CPC are as follows:
a) Suits for Recovery of Money: These are suits where a party seeks
to recover a sum of money due to them from another party. It may arise
out of a contract, loan, or any other legal obligation.
b) Suits for Specific Performance of Contracts: These are suits

where a party seeks to enforce the performance of a contract by the
other party. Specific performance is a discretionary remedy, and the
court may grant it in certain circumstances.
c) Suits for Declaration of Rights: These are suits where a party seeks
a declaration from the court affirming their legal rights or status. For
example, a suit for a declaration of ownership of a property.
d) Suits for Injunctions: These are suits where a party seeks an order
from the court restraining another party from doing a certain act or
compelling them to do a certain act. Injunctions can be temporary
(interim) or permanent, depending on the circumstances.
e) Suits for Partition of Property: These are suits where co-owners of

a property seek a division of the property among themselves.
f) Suits for Damages: These are suits where a party seeks

compensation for the loss or harm suffered due to the wrongful act of
another party.
b) Are the following suits triable by a civil court? If so, why? If no,
why not?
(i) A suit for declaring the attachment under Section 146, Cr. P.C. to
the illegal.
The ability of a civil court to try a suit depends on the nature of the
dispute and the jurisdiction of the court. Here’s a general analysis:
This appears to be a matter related to criminal procedure, and may not

typically fall under the jurisdiction of a civil court. However, if the issue
pertains to the rights and interests in property, a civil court may have
jurisdiction.
(ii) A suit for the recovery of voluntary offerings made to an

usurper.
This could potentially be a civil matter, as it involves the recovery of

property or money. The civil court would need to determine whether the
offerings were indeed voluntary and whether the recipient was an
usurper.
(iii) A suit for wrongful expulsion from a social club.
This could be considered a civil matter, as it pertains to the enforcement

of contractual rights and obligations. If the membership of the club is
contractual and the expulsion violates the terms of the contract, a civil
court could potentially hear the case.
(iv) A suit for an injunction restraining an interference with regard

to reciting prayers in connection with a burial ground.
This could be a civil matter if it involves the infringement of a person’s

legal rights. If the interference constitutes a nuisance or infringes upon
the person’s right to practice their religion, a civil court may have
jurisdiction.
Question No. 14: - Discuss whether the following are suits of civil
nature:
(a) Suit regarding right of worship: Yes, this is a civil suit as it pertains
to the enforcement of personal rights and freedoms.
(b) Suit regarding right of specific relief: Yes, this is a civil suit.
Specific relief pertains to the enforcement of individual civil rights.
(c) Suit for damages for civil wrong: Yes, this is a civil suit. It involves
the claim for damages due to a civil wrong or tort.
(d) Suit in respect of right of franchise: Yes, this can be considered a
civil suit as it involves the enforcement of political rights.
(e) Suit to declare an election invalid: Yes, this is a civil suit as it

pertains to the enforcement of political rights.
(f) Suit relating to caste question: This could be a civil suit if it involves
the enforcement of rights under anti-discrimination laws.
(g) Suit for voluntary payments: This could be a civil suit if it involves a
dispute over a contract or agreement to make voluntary payments.
(h) Suit regarding right of privacy: Yes, this is a civil suit as it pertains
to the enforcement of personal rights.
(i) Suit regarding right of burial: Yes, this is a civil suit as it pertains to
the enforcement of personal rights and freedoms.
CHAPTER VI
RES SUB-JUDICE
Question No. 15: -.
(a)Under what conditions can a suit be stayed?
A suit can be stayed under certain conditions as per Section 10 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Here are the key conditions:
1.Previously Instituted Suit: The matter in issue in the later suit should
be directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit.
2.Same Parties: The parties involved in both suits must be the same or
substantially the same. Parties in two suits need not be identical, but it is
enough that the previously instituted suit is between parties under whom
they or any of them claim litigating under the same title.
3.Same Title: The suits should be between parties litigating under the
same title.
4.Pending in Competent Court: The suit must be pending in a court

that has jurisdiction over the matter. This can be any court in India, any
court beyond the limits of India established by central governments
having the same jurisdiction, or the Supreme Court.
5.Existence of Concurrent Jurisdiction: The court must have

concurrent jurisdiction with the court where the other suit is pending.
The purpose of these conditions is to prevent the multiplicity of

proceedings and to avoid conflicting decisions. For example, if there was
an agreement between two parties and one party breaches the
agreement, the aggrieved party files a suit in a competent court. If the
aggrieved party files another suit on the same matter in another court
while the decision of the first court is pending, the first court can stay the
proceedings of the second court.
(b)Can one of the two cross-suits be stayed?
1.Yes, one of the two cross-suits can be stayed. This is governed by

Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in India. The rule
suggests that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the
matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously
instituted suit between the same parties. This rule is based on a public
approach which forbids the plaintiff to file two parallel cases on the
similar topic and restricts the chances of having two contradictory
judgments by the two courts.
2.The purpose of this doctrine, known as Res Sub Judice, is to prevent a

multiplicity of proceedings and to refrain from two conflicting decisions.
However, it’s important to note that this doctrine bars the parallel trial of
the suit where the matter is pending to adjudicate in the former suit, but it
doesn’t limit in filling the ensuing suit.
3.For example, if there was an agreement between two parties A & B,

wherein B needs to supply raw materials to A but didn’t supply the same
to A, then there will be a breach of a contractual obligation by B. If A files
suits against B in the competent court, and meanwhile, the decision of
this court was pending, A filed another suit against B in another court.
The competent court, by virtue of the power given in Section 10, can put
a stay on procedures of another court on the grounds that the topic of
the case was the same and the decision was pending.
(c) Is there any resemblance of the rule contained in section 10,

C.P.C. with the rule of res-judicata? Give reasons for your answer.
Yes, there is a resemblance between the rule contained in Section 10 of

the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) and the rule of res judicata. Both
principles aim to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure
consistency in judicial decisions. However, they apply in different
contexts and have different effects.
Section 10, C.P.C. - Doctrine of Res Sub Judice Section 10 of the

C.P.C. embodies the doctrine of Res Sub Judice. This doctrine prevents
a court from proceeding with a trial if the matter in issue is also directly
and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the
same parties. The purpose of this rule is to prevent courts of concurrent
jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining two parallel litigations.
Section 11, C.P.C. - Doctrine of Res Judicata On the other hand, the
doctrine of res judicata is defined in Section 11 of the C.P.C. This
doctrine prevents the trial of a suit where the issue has already been
settled in a previous suit between the same parties. The principle of res
judicata ensures that once a final judgment has been pronounced by a
competent court, the same issue cannot be re-litigated.
In summary, while both doctrines aim to maintain judicial efficiency and

consistency, the doctrine of Res Sub Judice (Section 10, C.P.C.) applies
to ongoing trials to prevent duplication of legal processes, whereas the
doctrine of Res Judicata (Section 11, C.P.C.) applies to prevent re-
litigation of issues that have already been adjudicated.
CHAPTER VII
RES-JUDICATA
Question No. 16: - What is the basis of the doctrine of ‘res-

judicata’? Distinguish ‘res-judicata’ from ‘res-subjudice’.
The doctrine of Res Judicata, derived from the Latin term meaning “a
matter judged”, is a legal principle that prohibits parties from relitigating a
claim or a defense of something that has already been decided. This
principle is based on the need for giving finality to judicial decisions. It
ensures that once a ‘res’ is ‘judicata’, it shall not be adjudged again. The
doctrine is designed to conserve judicial resources and prevent the
misuse of the judicial process.
On the other hand, Res Subjudice is a Latin term that means “under
judgment”. This doctrine comes into play when two or more suits on the
same matter are filed by parties. In such cases, the competent court has
the authority to stay the parallel proceedings of the suit to avoid
duplication and contrary orders.
Here are some key differences between Res Judicata and Res
Subjudice:
1.Application: Res Judicata applies to a case that has already been

decided and is no longer subject to appeal. It bars or precludes
continued litigation of such matter between the same parties. Res
Subjudice, on the other hand, applies to cases that are currently under
judgment or consideration.
2.Purpose: The purpose of Res Judicata is to ensure the finality of

judgments and conserve judicial resources. Res Subjudice aims to avoid
redundant legal processes and ensure consistency in judicial decisions.
3.Legal Effect: Res Judicata makes a final judgment conclusive and

prevents a lawsuit from being filed again on the same dispute. Res
Subjudice, however, only suspends the lawsuit until the earlier suit is
decided.
4.Statutory Provision: In the Indian context, the doctrine of Res

Judicata is embodied under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908, while the doctrine of Res Subjudice is elucidated in Section 10 of
the same code.
Question No. 17: - State the essential features of the rule of res-
judicata?
Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Court incorporates the doctrine of res

judicata also known as “rule of conclusiveness of judgment”.
The rule of res judicata, also known as the doctrine of res judicata, is a
legal principle that prevents an issue from being re-litigated once it has
been judicially determined. Here are the essential features of the rule of
res judicata:
1. Matter Directly and Substantially in Issue: The matter that is

directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have
been in issue (directly and substantially) in the former suit.
2. Final Judicial Decision: The decision in the former suit must have
been a final judicial decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal
having competent jurisdiction over the cause or matter in litigation,
and over the parties thereto.
3. Same Parties: The parties to the subsequent suit must be the
same as those in the former suit. This includes parties under
whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title.
4. Competent Court: The court that decided the former suit must
have been competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which
such issue has been subsequently raised.
5. Decision on Merits: Any decision made in the former suit must
have been on the merits.
6. Fair Hearing: The former suit must have been heard and finally
decided.
The doctrine of res judicata is based on three judicial maxims:
 Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: No man should
be punished twice for the same cause.
 Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: It is in the interest of the
state that there should be an end to litigation.
 Res judicata pro veritate accipitur: A judicial decision must be
accepted as correct.
Question No. 18: - What is a constructive res-judicata? Illustrate.
Constructive Res Judicata is an intricate legal construct designed to

enhance the finality and certainty of judicial decisions. It is embodied in
Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and prohibits a party from
raising pleas in a subsequent proceeding that could have been raised in
an earlier one involving the same parties and the same matter.
The principle of res judicata, rooted in the Latin maxim “res judicata pro
veritate accipitur,” translates to “a matter adjudged is taken for truth.”
Essentially, it prevents the same matter from being litigated repeatedly
between the parties. Constructive res judicata expands upon this
principle by preventing parties from advancing arguments that could and
should have been presented in an earlier proceeding but were not.
Certain conditions must be met to invoke the principle of constructive res

judicata under Section 11 of the CPC:
1.The parties involved in both proceedings must be the same.
2.The subject matter of the subsequent proceeding should be identical

to that of the earlier proceeding.
3.The issue raised in the subsequent proceeding should have been

directly and substantially in issue in the earlier proceeding.
4.The earlier proceeding must have resulted in a final decision on the

merits.
Case: In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, M was a
sub-inspector and was dismissed from the service of D.I.G. he
challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the High
Court. He said that he did not get a reasonable opportunity of being
heard before the passing of the order. However, the argument was
negatived and the petition was dismissed. He again filed a petition on
the ground that he was appointed by the I.G.P. and had no power to
dismiss him. The defendant argued that the suit was barred by
constructive res judicata. However, the trial court, the first appellate court
as well as the High Court held that the suit was not barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred
by constructive res judicata as the plea was within the knowledge of the
plaintiff, M and he could have taken this argument in his earlier suit.
Question No. 19: - Distinguish between res-judicata and estoppel.

Does an erroneous decision on an issue of law operate as res-
judicata between the same parties in a subsequent suit, and if so,
how far?
*Res judicata is a legal principle that prevents a court from taking

action in a case that another court has already decided.
*Estoppel prevents the parties from doing certain things, such as
denying what he previously stated.
*Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, incorporates the
principle of res judicata.
*Sections 115 to 117 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872
incorporated the principle of Estoppel.
Introduction:
Once a civil suit has been decided, no one can file another with the
same subject matter and between the same parties. The concept of Res
Judicata prevents this. Estoppel is a concept that is similar to this. Due
to the similarities between the two doctrines, the concepts of Res
Judicata and Estoppel are frequently confused. These two terms are
sometimes used incorrectly interchangeably. It is critical to understand
the distinctions between these two concepts, mainly if one is a member
of the legal profession. The purpose of this article is to explain the
various concepts of both terms as well as the differences between them.
What is Res Judicata?
Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code defining the doctrine of Res
Judicata. The doctrine of Res Judicata states that the case has already
been decided. It means that no court will have the authority to try any
new case or issue that has already been resolved in a previous case
between the same parties. Furthermore, the Court will not hear suits or
issues between parties who are litigating under the same title and matter
that a competent court has already decided.
As long as no other appeals are pending, a court can grant a decree of
Res Judicata and dismiss a suit or issue that the Court has already
decided. Suppose the competent court has already decided the matter.
In that case, this doctrine holds that no one has the right to reopen it with
another suit. As a result, decisions made in one suit between the same
parties are binding on all others.
As a rule, the courts will apply the principle of Res Judicata when issues
that were directly and substantially at issue between two parties in an
earlier suit also appear in the current one. For example, if only a portion
of the property was at issue in the prior suit, but the entire property of the
parties is at issue in the present or subsequent suit, the Court will grant a
decree of Res Judicata.
The Court held in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Ors. v.
Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy (1971 AIR 2355) that "the matter in issue" in
Section 11 C.P.C. refers to the right litigated between the parties, i.e., the
facts on which the right is claimed or repudiated, and the law applicable
to the resolution of that issue. The issue must have been substantially an
issue in a previous suit, according to Section 11. In the former suit,
however, determining whether an issue is substantial or collateral may
be difficult.
The Supreme Court of India held in the case of Ragho Prasad
Gupta v. Krishna Poddar (A.I.R. 1969 SC 316) that a mere expression
of opinion on a question that is not in issue could not be treated as res
judicata.
In the case of Mavelikkara Ex-Servicemen's Multipurpose Co-
operative Society v. Parvathy Amma Rajamma (Civil Revision
Petition No. 2917 Of 1983), the Kerala High Court held that the identity
of the subject matter under Res-Judicata is to identify the subject matter
not only in a physical sense but also in a legal sense.
In Krishan Kumar v. Vimala Sehgal (I.L.R. 1976 Delhi 238), the Delhi
High Court held that if the circumstances change, a second petition for
own occupation can be filed even if the Rent Controller rejected the
landlord's first application.
In the case of Vasudevan and Saraswati v. Jagat Guru
Shankaracharya, the Allahabad High Court stated that "same title"
means "same capacity." The question is whether the litigant is the same
or a different person in law. The decision in the previous suit does not
serve as res judicata if the same person is a party in a different
character. Similarly, because the property is identical, the subsequent
suit will not be res judicata if the rights claimed to differ. As a result, the
title refers to the party suing or being sued rather than the cause of
action.
In Muneesh Kumar Agnihotri and others v. Lalli Prasad Gupta
(A.I.R. 1989 All 202), the Allahabad High Court held that the doctrine of
res judicata would apply only when an issue was directly and
substantially an issue in the previous suit between the same parties or
between the parties under whom they or any of them claim to litigate
under the same title.
What is Estoppel?
The provisions relating to the Doctrine of Estoppel are laid out in Part III,
Chapter VII of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, containing Sections 115 to
117. Estoppel of tenant and licensee of persons in possession is
addressed in Section 116 of the said Act.
When one person, either by his act or omission or by declaration, has
persuaded another person to believe something to be true and act on it,
then he or his representative cannot deny the truth of that thing later in
the suit or the proceedings, according to Section 115 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. In layman's terms, estoppel means that one cannot
contradict, deny, or declare false a prior statement made in Court.
Res judicata is a similar concept. The parties, their representatives,
executors, and others are all bound by the decision of the Court once it
has been rendered. This doctrine prevents the parties to a case from
bringing a new suit in the same case or disputing the facts of the case
after the Court has rendered its decision.
In the case of Canada and Dominion Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Canadian
National (West Indies) Steamships Ltd., 1947 A.C. 46 at p. 56 (P.C.),
it was held that the legislature's intent was similar in that both of these
provisions were enacted into their respective statutes. The doctrine of
res judicata is frequently referred to as a branch of estoppel law.
In the case of Sardar Chand Singh v. Commissioner; Burdwan
Division (A.I.R. 1958 Cal 420), As a result of his alleged involvement in
a gruesome murder case and other cases, Chand Singh, the Managing
Director of Messrs., was denied a revolver licence. Chand did not appeal
the District Magistrate's decision that he could not hold a revolver licence
due to public order and safety concerns. This gave rise to the
reasonable assumption that he had agreed to it. When he later applied
to the District Magistrate to have his case reconsidered, he was denied
due to the doctrine of "Estoppel by Conduct."
The High Court of Orissa held in Jatindra Prasad Das v. State of
Orissa &Ors. (W.P. C 21449/2011) that Estoppel cannot be used
against statutes and statutory provisions. It was also stated that statutory
provisions could not be ignored in any circumstance, even if there is
precedent or a previous administrative decision to support it.
Estoppel by convention occurs when parties to a transaction assume the
facts or the law, according to the case of Republic of India v. India Steam
Ship Company Limited [1998] AC 878. This assumption could be made
by both parties or by one of them. Under this principle, parties to an
agreement cannot deny the assumed facts. It would be unfair and unjust
to allow one or more parties to go back on their assumptions.
The Supreme Court held in Central Airman Selection Board v.
Surendra Kumar Das (A.I.R. 2002 SC 214) that if a person has made a
false representation and induced the authority to act on it, he cannot
challenge it on the basis of promissory estoppel. If the authority
discovers that it has been misled, it has the authority to terminate the
agreement.
The Court upheld in State of Maharashtra v. Anita (CA 6132-33/2016)
that once a person has been appointed as an employee under a contract
and has accepted all of its terms and conditions, he is estopped from
challenging the term of the appointment later on.
The Differences between Res Judicata and Estoppel
1.The Court's final decision is known as res judicata. It forbids the
parties from re-litigating the issues that were or could have been raised
in the particular case. Whereas, issue estoppel is a legal principle that
states that even if a court has made a decision, re-litigation of that issue
on a different course of action involving either of the parties involved in
the first case is prohibited.
2.The most significant distinctions can be summed up as follows: origin,
development, authority, prohibitory value, and binding nature. The point
of origin of res judicata is a court decision in a previous case, while the
origin of estoppel is the act of the parties. Res judicata doctrine was
created to protect public policy by ending the litigation. In contrast,
estoppel is based on equity principles and therefore prohibits multiple
representations. Res judicata, on the other hand, prohibits the filing of
multiple lawsuits.
3.In legal terms, res judicata is a bar to a court's jurisdiction and a
fundamental test for bringing a lawsuit; on the other hand, estoppel is
merely a doctrine observed in evidence that prevents the parties from
speaking further. If another court previously decided on the case, res
judicata prevents this Court from taking further action. On the other
hand, estoppel forbids the parties from performing certain acts, denying
what he had previously said. To put it another way, both doctrines have
prohibitory values in that they both forbid people from asserting the
same thing repeatedly in Court. At the same time, estoppel prevents
someone from saying something they've already said, and the
consequences have already come as a result.
It was held in Pratima Choudhary v. Kalpana Mukherjee A.I.R. 2014
SC 1304 that the instantaneous alteration of position should be such that
requiring him to return to the original position would be iniquitous. As a
result, the doctrine of estoppel would only apply when the second party
alters his position as a result of the first party's representation in such a
way that it would be unfair to restore the initial position.
4.The effect of res judicata is binding on both litigants because both
parties have approached a subsequent court for the same matter.
Hence, res judicata applies to both parties. When estoppel is used, a
binding effect only applies to the party who made the previous statement
or conduct, and as a result, only that person will be held responsible for
the new course of action.
In Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India A.I.R.
1990 SC 334, the Apex Court stated that litigation would never end
without the rule of res judicata, and the parties would be subjected to
constant trouble, harassment, and expenses.
In Maddanappa v. Chandramma A.I.R. 1965 SC 1812, it was stated
that the legislature's goal in enacting the doctrine of estoppel is to
prevent fraud and ensure fairness between parties by encouraging
honesty and good faith. As a result, if one person misrepresents a fact to
another, the rule of estoppel does not apply because the other person
knows the true state of facts and thus could not have been misled by the
misrepresentation.
The Supreme Court observed in Batul Begum v. Hem Chander A.I.R.
1960 All 519, that the rule of constructive res judicata is nothing more
than a rule of estoppel because constructive res judicata is a legal fiction
created by the Court in which the matter in issue is treated as if it might
and ought to have been the matter directly and substantially in issue in a
subsequent suit.
Conclusion:
Both Res Judicata and Estoppel are concepts that are widely accepted
throughout the world's jurisdictions. As a result, doctrines such as Res
Judicata and Estoppel have gained prominence in Indian law. This
doctrine binds Indian civil courts as well as administrative law and other
legislation. Arguments for and against res judicata are subject to public
policy considerations.
As a result, the doctrine of Res Judicata limits a plaintiff's ability to
recover damages from the defendant on the same injury more than
once. In contrast, the Doctrine of Estoppel safeguards people from fraud
or misrepresentation. This theory steers clear of those kinds of situations
by holding the offender accountable for his wrongful actions. Hence, this
article has tried to explain the essential points of differences.
As for the question about an erroneous decision on an issue of law

operating as res-judicata, it’s important to note that the court is not
concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment
when determining the application of the rule of res judicata. Even an
erroneous decision can operate as res judicata4. However, if the
question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court
or a decision of the Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by
resort to the rule of res judicata, a party affected by the decision will not
be precluded from challenging the validity of that order because of the
rule of res judicata. This is because a rule of procedure cannot
supersede the law of the land.
Question No. 20: -
(a)When can a matter be a res-judicata between co-defendants?

Conditions required for a decision to become res judicata between co-
defendants are the same conditions which require for the co-plaintiffs.
They are:
1.The must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned.
2.It must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to plaintiff relief he

claims
3.The co-defendants must be necessary or proper parties to the suit.
4.The question between the defendant must have been finally decided
between them.
If a plaintiff cannot get his claimed relief without trying and deciding a
case between the co-defendants, the court will try and decide the case
in its entirety including the conflict of interest between the co-defendants
and the co-defendants will be bound by the decree.
But if the relief given to the plaintiff does not require or involve a decision
of any case between co-defendants, the co-defendants will not be bound
between each other.
(b)How far is the rule of res-judicata applicable to execution
proceeding?
The principle of res judicata is indeed applicable to execution

proceedings. This principle is laid down in Section 11 of the Civil
Procedure Code.
Prior to the addition of Explanation VII to Section 11 by an amendment

effective from February 1, 1977, the legal provision did not specifically
state that the principle of res judicata applies to execution proceedings.
However, it had been held that the general principles of res judicata
would be applicable to execution proceedings.
In the case of Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee, 1953 SCR

377 : AIR 1953 SC 65, it was held by the Supreme Court that a decision
in the previous execution case between the parties that the matter was
not within the competence of the executing court even though erroneous
is binding on the parties.
Subsequently, by the Act 104 of 1976 (effective from February 1, 1977),

Section 11 of the CPC was amended and Explanation VII was added, to
specifically lay down that the principle of res judicata was applicable to
execution proceedings1. This Explanation is as follows:
Explanation VII. — The provisions of this section shall apply to a

proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section
to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references,
respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question
arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of
that decree.
Thus, there should be no doubt that the principle of res judicata is

applicable to execution proceedings.
Question No. 21: - What do you understand by “matter directly and

substantially in issue”? Distinguish between matter “directly and
substantially in issue” and matter collaterally or incidentally in
issue.
In the context of civil suits, the term “matter directly and substantially
in issue” refers to the main facts or rights that are being contested or
litigated between the parties. These are the facts on which the right is
claimed and the law applicable to the determination of that issue1. The
term “directly” means immediately i.e., without any intervention, and
“substantially” implies essentially or materially2.
On the other hand, a “matter collaterally or incidentally in issue”

refers to facts or matters that, although not the main focus of the
litigation, may still be relevant or necessary to resolve the primary issue.
These are facts that may not directly affect the outcome of the case but
are related to the main issue and can influence the court’s decision.
For example, consider a case where A rents two parts of land to B for a
rent of Rs. 5,000, but B only pays Rs. 2,500 claiming to have used just
one portion of the land. In this case, the matter directly and substantially
in issue for A is the rent, while for B, it is the area of land used. However,
when the court investigates the area of land used by B, this matter,
though not directly in issue, would be considered incidentally and
collaterally in issue.
The major difference between the two is that for a matter to operate as
res judicata (a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court
and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties), it must
have been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit and not
merely collaterally or incidentally in issue. This means that a fact cannot
be said to be directly in issue if the judgment stands whether that fact
exists or not.
Question No. 22: -
(a)Whether a previous decision on title in land acquisition

proceedings-operates as res-judicata in a subsequent suit between
the same parties when the question of title was again raised?
Discuss in the light of latest case law.
The principle of res judicata, as enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), prevents a matter that has been
adjudicated upon by a competent court from being re-litigated in a
subsequent suit. This principle applies to land acquisition proceedings as
well.
In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the court held that
the principles of res judicata apply to eviction petitions under the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958. The court stated that the issue of whether a suit
is barred by res judicata must be determined from the statements in the
plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other
material, including the written statement in the case.
However, the application of res judicata in land acquisition proceedings

is not straightforward and depends on the specifics of the case. For
instance, if a mortgagee intervenes in land acquisition proceedings and
makes a claim for compensation, and any question of title arises about
the title of the mortgagor in respect to the land acquired which affects the
claim for compensation, he has every right to protect that title and if he
defends that title and the issue is decided against his mortgagor, the
decision would operate as res judicata even as against the mortgagee.
In conclusion, whether a previous decision on title in land acquisition

proceedings operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the
same parties when the question of title is again raised, depends on the
specific circumstances of the case and the nature of the claims and
defenses raised in the proceedings. It is always advisable to consult with
a legal expert or attorney for advice tailored to the specific
circumstances of the case. Please note that this information is based on
the latest case law as of 2023.
(b)A had instituted against B two suits asserting title to a certain

property. B contested these claims and also instituted two other
suits to establish his title in the same property as against A. A’s suit
were decreed and B’s suits were dismissed. B filed four appeals,
two appeals against the decision given in A’s suits and two appeals
against the dismissal of his two suits.
It was found that all the four appeals were taken on the file of the
High Court but the two appeals filed by B against the decision in
the suit instituted by him were dismissed by the High Court on the
ground that one was filed beyond time and the other for non-
prosecution. At the final hearing the High Court took the view that
the dismissal of B’s two appeals operated as res-judicata in the two
appeals filed by B against the decision in A’s suit on the question
of title to the property. Is the view taken by the High Court, correct?
Ans: The principle of res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, is a
legal doctrine that prevents a party from relitigating a matter that has
already been decided by a competent court. However, it’s important to
note that res judicata typically applies to the same claim or cause of
action, and between the same parties.
In the scenario you’ve described, B’s appeals against the decision in A’s
suits and B’s appeals against the dismissal of his own suits are separate
matters. The dismissal of B’s appeals in his own suits should not
automatically operate as res judicata in the appeals against the decision
in A’s suits, as they are different causes of action.
However, this is a general interpretation and the actual application of the

principle can vary based on jurisdiction and specific circumstances. It
would be best for B to consult with a legal professional to understand the
implications in his specific case. Please note that this advice is based on
a general understanding of the principle of res judicata and may not
apply directly to all legal systems or situations. Always consult with a
legal professional for advice on specific legal matters.
Question No. 23: -
(a)Is res-judicata a rule of substantive law or a rule of procedure?
Res judicata is a rule of procedure and not substantive law. It is a legal

doctrine that prevents the same dispute between the same parties from
being litigated again once it has been resolved. This principle is based
on the need for finality in litigation and the belief that no person should
be vexed twice for the same cause. It is established on the principles of
justice, equity, and good conscience. The doctrine of res judicata is
included in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code in India.
(b) On what grounds is constructive res-judicata based?
Constructive res-judicata is an intricate legal construct designed to

enhance the efficacy of judicial decisions and maintain the integrity of
legal proceedings. It is based on the following grounds:
1.Same Parties: The parties involved in both proceedings must be the
same.
2.Same Subject Matter: The subject matter of the subsequent

proceeding should be identical to that of the earlier proceeding.
3.Issue Raised: The issue raised in the subsequent proceeding should

have been directly and substantially in issue in the earlier proceeding.
4.Final Decision: The earlier proceeding must have resulted in a final

decision on the merits.
The principle of constructive res-judicata is grounded in the larger

objective of ensuring efficiency, finality, and fairness in judicial
proceedings. It prevents parties from advancing arguments that could
and should have been presented in an earlier proceeding but were not.
This doctrine enhances the finality of decisions and discourages dilatory
tactics aimed at prolonging legal battles.
(c) Does the principle of constructive res-judicata apply to

execution proceedings?
Yes, the principle of constructive res judicata does apply to execution

proceedings.
The principle of constructive res judicata is an intricate legal construct

designed to enhance the efficacy of the principle of res judicata and
maintain the integrity of legal proceedings. It is embodied in Section 11
of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and prohibits a party from raising
pleas in a subsequent proceeding that could have been raised in an
earlier one involving the same parties and the same matter.
In the context of execution proceedings, this means that if a party had

the opportunity to raise a plea in the original suit but did not do so, then
a matter relating directly and substantially with the previous issue cannot
be raised further in the subsequent execution proceedings. This doctrine
enhances the finality of decisions and discourages dilatory tactics aimed
at prolonging legal battles.
Question No. 24: - Distinguish between res-judicata and

constructive res-judicata?
Here’s the distinction between Res Judicata and Constructive Res
Judicata:
Res Judicata: This is a legal doctrine that prohibits the same parties
from litigating on the same issue that has already been decided by a
competent court. The purpose of Res Judicata is to bring finality to the
judgment and to avoid contradictory decisions by different courts. It
ensures the finality and certainty of judicial decisions.
Constructive Res Judicata: This is a more expansive interpretation of

the Res Judicata doctrine. Constructive Res Judicata posits that if a
matter could and should have been a part of the earlier litigation but
wasn’t, it cannot be raised in subsequent litigation. This concept is
designed to enhance the efficacy of the Res Judicata principle and
maintain the integrity of legal proceedings.
In essence, while Res Judicata deals with issues that have already been
decided, Constructive Res Judicata deals with issues that could have
been decided in the previous suit.
Question No. 25: -
(a)Is the defendant barred by the principle of res-judicata if on

issue between the parties has been decided but the suit has been
dismissed?
The principle of res judicata, which means “a matter adjudged”, applies

when a case has been heard and finally decided on merits. However, if a
suit has been dismissed, the application of res judicata depends on the
nature of the dismissal.
If the suit was dismissed due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
court’s orders, this is often referred to as an involuntary dismissal. These
dismissals are highly reviewable by appellate courts to ensure that the
trial court was not abusing its discretion.
On the other hand, if the suit was dismissed for default, meaning it was
not decided on its merits, the principle of res judicata does not apply.
This is because the dismissal did not involve a final decision on the
issues between the parties.
In summary, whether the defendant is barred by the principle of res
judicata in a subsequent suit depends on whether the previous suit was
decided on its merits or dismissed for other reasons.
(b) Explain the requirement of parties being identical for the

application of the rule of res-judicata?
The requirement of parties being identical for the application of the rule
of res judicata is a fundamental principle in law. This principle, also
known as the “Requirement of Identity of Parties”, is based on the
following considerations:
1.Finality of Judgments: Res judicata aims to prevent the repeated

litigation of the same issue, thereby saving the courts’ time and providing
finality to the parties involved. If the parties are not identical in the
subsequent action, the principle of finality would be undermined as the
new party was not part of the original litigation and thus did not have
their “day in court” to defend their interests.
2.Fairness: It is a cardinal principle of law that a person should not be

bound by a judgment against which they have never had an opportunity
to defend themselves. If a new party is introduced in the subsequent
action, it would be unfair to bind them by the decision of the previous
litigation in which they were not a party.
3.Consistency: The rule of res judicata ensures consistency in

judgments. If the parties are not identical, there is a risk of inconsistent
judgments on the same issue.
However, it’s important to note that there are exceptions to this rule. In
certain cases, res judicata can be successfully pleaded to bind a
stranger to the former litigation. But these are exceptions and not the
norm. The general rule remains that for the application of res judicata,
the parties in the subsequent action should be identical to those in the
first or have been represented by a party to the prior action.
Question No. 26: - In a suit between A and B regarding a certain

plot of land there are two matters in issue: (i) whether A is the heir
of D and (ii) whether A is the owner of the said plot by adverse
possession. The first issue is decided in the negative but as to the
other issue the court decides that A is the owner by adverse
possession. In a subsequent suit between A and B, A again takes
the plea that he, that is, A is the heir of D. Is the plea barred by res-
judicata? Give reasons for your answer.
Yes, the plea is barred by the principle of res judicata.
Res judicata is a legal doctrine that prevents the same dispute between
the same parties from being relitigated once it has been finally decided.
The purpose of this doctrine is to promote finality, certainty, and
efficiency in the judicial process.
In the scenario you described, the issue of whether A is the heir of D

was already decided in the negative in the previous suit. Therefore,
under the principle of res judicata, A is barred from raising this issue
again in a subsequent suit against B. This is because the issue was
already finally decided in the previous litigation, and A cannot challenge
that decision in a new lawsuit.
Question No. 27: - A brought a suit for certain properties in

possession of B on the allegation that he was the nearest their of C,
the last owner of the properties in suit. B contested the suit on the
grounds that he was an adopted son of C. A’s suit was decreed and
it was held by the court hearing the suit that B had failed to prove
adoption set up by him. Subsequent to this decision, B instituted a
suit against A alleging that even if there was no adoption he was
the nearest heir to C and as such he was entitled to the properties
left by C. Is the subsequent suit by B maintainable? Give reasons
for your answer.
The maintainability of B’s subsequent suit against A largely depends on

the legal principles of res judicata and issue estoppel.
Res judicata is a legal doctrine that prevents the same dispute between
the same parties from being relitigated once it has been finally decided.
In the first case, the court has already decided that A is the nearest heir
of C, and B failed to prove his adoption. Therefore, under the principle of
res judicata, B may not be allowed to bring a new suit on the same
issue.
Issue estoppel is a related concept that prevents a party from
contesting an issue that has already been determined in a previous legal
action. If the issue of B’s status as the nearest heir was directly and
necessarily adjudicated in the first suit, then B may be estopped from
raising this issue again.
However, if B can demonstrate new evidence or a change in

circumstances that could potentially alter the outcome, he might be able
to overcome these barriers.
Question No. 28: -
(a)If two suits or appeals are tried together when an appeal from the
decision in one only is barred by res-judicata.
1.The principle of res judicata, as defined under Section 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure (CPC), bars any party to a civil lawsuit from suing
again on the same claim or issue that has previously been decided by
the court. This includes any issue that was heard and decided in the first
lawsuit, even if the subsequent lawsuit attempts to state different
reasons the party should prevail.
2.In the context of two suits or appeals tried together, the application of
res judicata can be complex. It’s important to note that both the suits
must be between the same parties or their representatives. If the parties
to both the suits are different, there would lie no ground for the
applicability of the doctrine of res judicata.
3.If an appeal from the decision in one suit is barred by res judicata, it
would generally mean that the issue has already been decided by a
competent court in a previous suit involving the same parties.Therefore,
the same issue cannot be re-litigated in a subsequent suit or appeal.
4.However, the specific application of res judicata can vary based on the
details of the cases involved, the issues at stake, and the jurisdiction. It’s
always recommended to consult with a legal professional for advice
tailored to the specific circumstances.
(b) Can a plea of jus tertii be barred by res-judicata.

The principle of res judicata, as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC), prevents a matter that has been finally adjudicated by a
competent court from being reopened in a subsequent litigation.
However, the application of res judicata depends on several factors,
such as whether the issue was substantively at issue in the previous
suit.
In the context of the question, it’s important to note that the plea of jus
tertii (third-party rights) involves a defendant claiming that the property in
dispute belongs to a third party. Whether a plea of jus tertii can be
barred by res judicata would likely depend on the specifics of the case,
including whether the issue of third-party rights was substantively at
issue and finally decided in the previous suit.
However, it’s also worth noting that if a suit is dismissed for reasons
such as lack of jurisdiction, default of appearance, non-joinder or mis-
joinder of parties, improper framing, technical mistakes, or other similar
reasons, the decision would not be on the merits and thus would not be
res judicata in a subsequent suit.

Civil Procedure Code Q &amp; A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Code Q &amp; A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER I

Historical Background and Scheme of Civil Procedure Code 1908

Before 1859, there was no uniform codified law relating to procedure of

Meaning and Objects:

1. The main object of Code of Civil Procedure is to consolidate and

Extent and application:

Scope of the Code:

The Code specifically provides that:

Scheme of the Code: the code of Civil Procedure comprises of two

a. Pleading (plaint and written statement)

Salient features of the Code: there are following features:

1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is one of the most important

The main object of the Acts is to ensure fair justice by eliminating

1. Summons served to the defendant within 30 days from the date of

i. No appeal shall lie against the decree or order if the subject

Question No. 2.: - Give a short history of the Code of Civil

Here is a brief history of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):

 Before 1859, there was no uniform codified law relating to the

Now, let’s outline its scheme:

 The Code of Civil Procedure comprises of two parts: The body of

The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 brought about

1. Amendment of Section 39: A new sub-section was inserted stating

The chief object of these changes introduced by the Code of Civil

Law is dynamic. This means that law is subjected to the changes to

Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002

Because of the delay in delivering justice experienced by the litigants at

Arun Jaitley, introduced a new amendment Bill in 2002, taking into

Key Highlights of the Amendment Act, 2002

Transfer of Decree (Section: 39)

 Section 39 lays down the conditions under which a decree can

Private alienation of property after attachment to be void (Section:

 Sub-section (2) has been added on the recommendations of the

 By the Amendment Act of 2002, the Section was renumbered as

No further appeal in certain cases (Section 100A)

 The Section was substituted by the Amendment Act of 1999 for

 The present section has been substituted for

No second appeal in certain cases (Section 102)

 The Amendment Act of 1999 substituted the section for the

 Prior to both the Amendment Acts, the second appeal in every

Issue and Service of Summons (Order V)

 Order V of the Code provides for issue and service of summons.

Pleading Generally (Order VI)

 Rule 17 [Amendment of pleadings] and Rule 18 [Failure to

Plaint (Order VII)

 By Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, Rule 9

Written Statement, Set-Off and Counter-Claim (Order VIII)

 Rule 1 [Written Statement], Rule 1A [Duty of defendant to

Appearance of Parties and Consequence of Non-Appearance

 Rule 2 [Dismissal of suit where summons not served in

 Rule 5 [Power to amend, and strike out issues]

Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witness (Order XVIII)

 Rule 2 [Statement and production of evidence] and Rule 4

 Rule 1 was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure

Execution of Decrees and Orders (Order XXI)

 Rule 32 and Rule 92 were amended by the Code of Civil

 The amendment in Rule 92 has been made on the

Constitutional Validity of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002

 In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, the writ

 “The power of judicial discretion comes along with the action of

The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 brought about

1. Amendment of Section 39: A new sub-section was inserted

The chief object of these changes introduced by the Code of Civil

Question No. 4: - The prime object of the changes introduced by

Civil Procedure Code Q & A

Civil Procedure Code Q & A