CPC NOTES

JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS (SECTION 9)

 The term ‘jurisdiction’ has not been defined in the Code. The word is derived from
two Latin terms ‘juris’ and ‘dicto’ which means ‘I speak by the law’.
 Stated simply, ‘jurisdiction’ means the power or authority of a Court of law to hear
and determine a cause or a matter. It is the power to entertain, deal with and decide a
suit, an action, petition or other proceeding – Concise Oxford Dictionary.
 Jurisdiction is the authority with which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated
before it or to take cognizance of matters presented formally for its decision – Official
Trustee v. Sachindra Nath, AIR 1969 SC 823.
 Jurisdiction means the power or authority of a court to inquire into the facts, to apply
the law and to pronounce a judgment and to carry it into execution – Ujjam Bai v.
State of UP, AIR 1962 SC 1621.
 Jurisdiction means and includes any authority conferred by the law upon the court,
tribunal or judge to decide or adjudicate any dispute between the parties or pass
judgment or order.
 Section 9 of C.P.C deals with the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and provides that the
courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A civil court has jurisdiction to try
a suit if two conditions are fulfilled
1) The suit must be of civil nature and
2) The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly
barred.
 Jurisdiction of civil courts can be divided based on Pecuniary, Territorial and Subject
matter.

1) SUITS OF CIVIL NATURE

 Sec.9 of the CPC reads as follows: “The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein
contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.” There is no definition provided in
the Code nor any guidelines mentioned to determine the ‘civil nature’.
 A suit can be said to be of civil nature if it involves determination of civil rights. Civil
rights mean the rights and remedies vested in a citizen, within the domain of private
law as distinct from rights related to criminal or political matters and public law –
PMA Metropolitan v. Moran Marthoma, AIR 195 SC 2001.
  The civil rights can be of a private individual or other known legal entities as
distinguished from groups or associations which have no distinct legal personality or
recognition.
 Any suits in which the principal question relates to religious rites or ceremonies are
not suits of civil nature. Suits for vindication of mere dignity attached to an office are
not suits of a civil nature. The relations between parties in all such cases were
governed by either a social or moral code of conduct.
 There was no legal right which was sought to be enforced. In the absence of such
legal right, Courts wisely refrained from regulating the behaviour of the public based
on any social or moral Code of conduct which did not possess any legal sanction.

2) EXPRESS AND IMPLIED BAR

 The suit which is expressly barred means the suit which is barred by any statute or
any other law for the time being in force. The legislature has an option to bar the
jurisdiction of the civil court with respect to a particular class of suit keeping itself
with the ambit of the power conferred on the Constitution of India.
 The civil court has no jurisdiction over the matter in which the court under the Code
of Criminal Procedure, Revenue Court has exclusive jurisdiction, or the matter is dealt
with special tribunal dealt under special statutes. For example Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Cooperative Tribunal.
 A suit is impliedly barred when it is barred by either the general principle of law or
general conduct of law. The basic purpose of barred impliedly is that thecourt should
not deal with the matter which causes injurious to the public or which is against the
public will.

CASE LAWS

In the case of P.M.A Metropolitan vs Moran Mar Marthoma,

 The Supreme Court observed that:-
 The phrases used in section 9 has positive and negative meanings.
 The earlier part has a wider sense as it covers all the matter of civil nature; on the
other hand, the latter part has a wider sense as it excludes the matter which is
impliedly or expressly barred.
 The two explanations mentioned in Section 9 express the legislative intentions.
 It casts an obligation on the court to exercise the jurisdiction for the enforcement of
private rights.
 No court is at discretion to refuse the matter which falls under this section.
 It is mandatory to take the cognizance of matter because the word “shall” is used
which means that it is a mandatory section.
In the case of Shankar Narayanan vs K. Sreedevi
 The Supreme Court held that the ‘Civil Court has inherent jurisdiction in all types of
civil matter as per Section 9 of CPC unless the suit is expressly or impliedly barred.’

In the case of Bar Council of West Bengal vs A. Austin.

 The High Court of Calcutta stated that when the statute which bars the jurisdiction
does not provide an alternative remedy, then the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot
be excluded.

TERRITORIAL OR LOCAL JURISDICTION

 Sections 16 to 20 of C.P.C deals with the Territorial jurisdiction of a court. Whereas

Sections 16 to 18 relate to immovable property and Section 19 deals with suit for
compensation for wrongs to persons are movable property. Section 20 of C.P.C is
residuary provision and cover all cases not falling under Section 16 to 19.
 Every Court has its own local or territorial limits beyond which it cannot exercise its
jurisdiction. These limits are fixed by the government. The District Judge has to
exercise jurisdiction within his District and not outside. The High Court has
jurisdiction over the territory of a State within which it is situated and not beyond it.
 Again, a Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit for immovable property situated
beyond its local limits.
 Territory of a court is decided after taking into account several factors they are
A) In case of immovable property
a) If the suit concerns recovery, rent, partition, sale, redemption, or
determination of the right of immovable property it shall be instituted in the
court within the local limits of which jurisdiction the property is situated.
b) Immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different courts. In
such case, the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated.
c) In case of dispute between 2 or more persons concerning movable
property, or any other wrong done –
In the place where wrong or damage has been caused to a person or any
damage has been caused to movable property then the suit may be instituted
either in the place where wrong is done or damage caused or in the place
where the defendant (The person who caused the loss) resides.
 d) where there is a dispute in a business, agreement or any kind of civil
dispute except matrimonial matter-
then the suit may be instituted either in a place where the defendant resides or
carries on business or in a place where the cause of action has arisen, i.e where
the dispute or wrong took place.
e) In case of a matrimonial dispute where a dispute arose between
husband and wife-
Than the case may be filed in the place where marriage was solemnized or in
the place where opposite party is residing or in the place where the husband
and wife last resided together or in the place where the persons filing the case
are residing.

PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

 Section 15 of the civil procedure court provides that every suit shall be instituted in
the court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
 The Code provides that a Court will have jurisdiction only over those suits the amount
or value of the subject-matter of which does not exceed the pecuniary limits of its
jurisdiction.
 Some Courts have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, but the other Courts can only try
suits up to a particular amount. Ex. Presidency Small Causes Court cannot entertain a
suit in which the amount claimed exceeds Rs.1000.

JURISDICTION AS TO SUBJECT-MATTER
 Different Courts have been empowered to decide different types of suits. Certain
Courts are precluded from entertaining certain suits. Thus a Presidency Small Causes
Court has no jurisdiction to try suits for specific performance of a contract, partition
of immovable property, foreclosure or redemption of a mortgage, etc.
 Similarly, in respect of testamentary matters, divorce cases, probate proceedings,
insolvency proceedings, etc., only the District Judge or Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) has
jurisdiction.

DOCTRINE OF RES SUB JUDICE

 Meaning of res subjudice: "Under Judgment".

  Sec.10 declares that no Court should proceed with the trial of any suit in which the
matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit
between the same parties and the Court before which the previously instituted suit is
pending is competent to grant the relief sought –Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-
operative Marketing Federation Ltd., AIR 1998 SC 1952.
 The Rule applies to the trial of a suit and not the institution thereof. It also does not
preclude a Court from passing interim orders, such as a grant of injunction or stay,
appointment of receiver etc. - Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-operative
Marketing Federation Ltd., AIR 1998 SC 1952.
OBJECT
The object of the Rule contained in Sec.10 is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction
from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of
the same cause of action, the same subject matter and the same relief. The policy of law is to
confine a Plaintiff to one litigation, thus obviating the possibility of two contradictory
verdicts by the same Court in respect of the same relief –Bal Kishan v. Kishan Lal, (1889)
ILR11 All 148.

CONDITIONS
 Both suits must be between the same parties or their representatives.
 The matter in issue in both suits must be directly and substantially the same.
 Two suits must be pending. Where the suit must be pending
 The former suit must be pending in the court while the latter suit is instituted. The
word pending is for the previously instituted suit, where the final decision has not
been arrived at.
 Where the matter in issue is the same Section 10 clearly states that the matter in issue
in both the suits must be directly or substantially be the same. In other words, there
must be two suits one that is previously instituted and another that is subsequently
substituted.
 The issues of both the suits should be the same to get the benefit of this principle, it is
not sufficient if only one or two issues are common. In the circumstances where the
entire issues are not the same, the court may exercise its power under Section 151 and
stay the trial in a subsequent suit or the trial of the suit may be consolidated.
 The power of courts to stay the trial under Section 151 is discretionary in nature and
can be exercised only when there is an abuse of process of court and if it defeats the
ends of justice.
 According to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 “matter in issue” is of two kinds: Matter
directly and substantially in issue – Here “directly” means immediately i.e. without
any intervention. The word “substantially” implies essentially or materially.
 Section 10 also specifies that the former suit must be pending before a court which is
competent to carry out the trial.
  If the former suit is pending before an incompetent court, no legal effects can flow
from it.

ILLUSTRATIONS:

 Case 1: E files a suit against F in Court X seeking dissolution of a partnership and

settlement of accounts.
 Case 2: F files a suit against E in Court Y seeking an injunction to prevent E from
dissolving the partnership.
 Application of Res Sub Judice: The court where the later suit (Court Y) is filed should
stay the proceedings until the earlier suit (Court X) is decided, as both suits involve
the same partnership and related issues.

 Case 1: G files a suit against H in Court X for partition of family property, claiming a
specific share.
 Case 2: H files a suit against G in Court Y for partition of the same family property,
claiming a different share.
 Application of Res Sub Judice: The court where the later suit (Court Y) is filed should
stay the proceedings until the earlier suit (Court X) is decided, as the matter in issue is
the same in both suits.

 Case 1: C files a suit against D in Court X for breach of contract and claims damages.
 Case 2: D files a suit against C in Court Y for the same contract, alleging that C failed
to fulfill his part of the contract.
 Application of Res Sub Judice: The court where the later suit (Court Y) is filed should
stay the proceedings until the earlier suit (Court X) is decided, as both suits involve
the same contract and issues.

CASE LAW:
In Neeta vs. Shiv Dayal Kapoor & Others, (2014) 1 ICC 851, it was held that the subsequent
matter cannot be stayed if the conditions mentioned in Section 10 are not fulfilled. In the
apparent case, the two courts that tried the same issues did not have concurrent jurisdiction.
Therefore, the proceedings in the subsequent court were not stayed.
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it means
“a matter adjudged”. Res judicata plays a role in administrative law as well. It helps to
administer how efficiently the Judiciary works and disposes of the case. The parties involved
in a case may file the same suit again just to harass the reputation of the opposite party and
may do to get compensation twice. So to prevent such overloads and extra cases, the doctrine
of res judicata plays a major role and importance in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Sec.11 of the CPC embodies the doctrine of res judicata or the Rule of conclusiveness of a
judgment, as to the points decided either of fact, of law, or fact and law, in every subsequent
suit between the parties. It enacts that once a competent Court finally decides a matter, no
party can be permitted to reopen it in subsequent litigation. In the absence of such a Rule,
there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put to constant trouble and
harassment and expenses – Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941.

EXAMPLES OF RES JUDICATA

Case 1: I sue J, an employer, for wrongful termination and seek reinstatement. The court
finds the termination justified and dismisses the suit.
Case 2: I sue J again for the same wrongful termination but seek different relief, such as
damages instead of reinstatement.
Application of Res Judicata: The second suit will be barred by res judicata because the matter
of wrongful termination has already been adjudicated.

Case 1: E sues F for injuries sustained in a car accident and seeks compensation. The court
rules in favour of E and awards compensation.
Case 2: E sues F again for the same accident but seeks additional compensation for new
symptoms that have appeared.
Application of Res Judicata: The second suit will be barred by res judicata because the issue
of compensation for the injuries from the accident has already been adjudicated.

Case 1: A files a suit against B for possession of a piece of land claiming ownership. The
court, after a thorough trial, dismisses A's claim and upholds B's ownership.
Case 2: A, not satisfied with the verdict, files another suit against B, this time claiming
ownership on a different ground but for the same piece of land.
Application of Res Judicata:The second suit will be barred by res judicata because the matter
of ownership of the land has already been decided by a competent court.
OBJECT OF RES JUDICATA
1. Object The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims:
a) Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa – No man should be vexed twice for the
same cause.
b) Interest republicae ut sit finis litium –It is in the interest of the state that there should be an
end to litigation.
c) Res judicata pro veritate accipitur –a judicial decision must be accepted as true and correct.
If a court has already decided on the ownership of a property, the same parties cannot file
another suit to challenge the ownership again.

CONDITIONS OF RES JUDICATA

In order to constitute a matter as res judicata, the following conditions must be there:
(i) There must be two suits one former suit and the other subsequent suit;
(ii) The Court which decided the former suit must be competent to try the subsequent suit;
(iii) The matter directly and substantially in issue must be the same either actually
constructively in both the suits;
(iv) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard
and finally decided by the Court in the former suit;
(v) The parties to the suits or the parties under whom they or any of them claim must be the
same in both the suits;
(vi) The parties in both the suits must have litigated under the same title.

DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY IN ISSUE

1. Matter directly and substantially in issue - According to Mulla, thematters in issue can be
classified in two broad heads—(1) matters directly and substantially in issue and (2) matters
collaterally or incidentally in issue. (a) Matters directly and substantially in issue - Matters
directly and substantially in issue have further been subdivided into: (A) Actually in issue and
(B) Constructively in issue.
2. Further, it depends upon whether a decision on such an issue will materially affect the
decision of the suit - Isher Singh v Sarwan Singh, AIR 1965 SC 948
3. The doctrine of res judicata applies where the issues in the two suits are identical in nature.
Thus, even if the cause of action, object, and relief claimed in the two suits are distinct, the
doctrine of res judicata can be invoked so long as the issues are identical.
4. A suit may also involve certain subsidiary issues that are secondary to the primary issues.
Those issues that are ancillary to the substantial and direct issues are known as collateral or
incidental issues. The doctrine of res judicata cannot be invoked concerning these collateral
or incidental issues.

DECISION ON MERITS
The decision of a court will operate as res judicata only if it is given on the merits of the case.
Thus, if a suit is dismissed due to an absence of jurisdiction or if a compromise decree is
passed by the court, then such a dismissal or suit will not operate as res judicata. Similarly, if
a suit is dismissed on procedural grounds such as misjoinder of parties or due to failure in
furnishing security, then such a decision would not operate as res judicata.

CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA

The doctrine of constructive res judicata has been incorporated in Explanation IV to Section
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Explanation IV provides that all those matters that
ought to have been made a ground of defence or attached to a suit but were omitted, will also
be deemed to have been directly or substantially in issue in such a suit. If a party fails to raise
a reasonable ground of defence or attack during a suit, then such an issue is presumed to have
been decided against the defaulting party.
Every judicial action has its foundation in a cause of action. When the courts pronounce a
final order, the cause of action is deemed extinguished. Thus, the same cause of action cannot
be agitated again to claim relief that should have been claimed in the initial suit.
The cause of action cannot survive the judgment and is deemed to have been merged in the
judgment.
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.
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.

COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICITON

Explanation VIII was inserted by the Amending Act of 1976 to ensure that the decisions of
the Courts of limited jurisdiction, in so far such decisions are within the competence of the
Courts of limited jurisdiction, must operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, although the
Courts of limited jurisdiction may not be competent to try such subsequent suit.
Res judicata operates on judgments of Courts of Exclusion Jurisdiction.— A plea of Res
judicata on general principles can be successfully taken in respect of judgments of courts of
exclusive jurisdiction. These Courts are not entitled to try a regular suit and they only
exercise special jurisdiction conferred on them by the statute– Raj Lakshmi Dasi v Banamali
Sen, AIR 1953 SC 33 (40). (d) Expression “the Court of Limited Jurisdiction” is wide
enough.—The expression “the Court of limited jurisdiction” in Explanation VIII is wide
enough to include a Court whose jurisdiction is subject to pecuniary limitation and other
cognate expressions analogous thereto. An order or an issue which had arisen directly and
substantially between the parties or their privies and decided finally by a competent Court or
tribunal, though of limited or special jurisdiction, which includes pecuniary jurisdiction, will
operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding – Sulochana Amma v Narayanan
Nair, AIR 1994 SC 152.

CASES
1. Former suit - The term "former suit" means previously decided suit though in fact that is
instituted subsequent - Prabha Singh Surjit Singh v Sanka Narasimha Rao, AIR 1957 AP 992.
2. Explanation I attached to the section confirms the aforesaid view. The expression "former
suit" distinctly shows that there must be two suits or proceedings - Maganbhai v Chetan Lal,
AIR 1968 Raj 81.
3. Affirming its earlier decision in Lonankutty v Thomman, AIR 1976 SC 1645 : (1976)
3SCC 528 the Supreme Court has held in Venkataswara Prabhu v Krishna Prabhu, AIR 1977
SC 1268 : (1977) 2 SCC 181 that "The expression "former suit", according to explanation I of
section 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, makes it clear that if a decision is given before the
institution of the proceeding which is sought to be barred by resjudicata, and that decision is
allowed to become final or becomes final by operation of law, a bar of res judicata would
emerge" - AIR 1977 SC 1268.
4. Competency of Court trying former suit - Under section 11, it is necessary that the court
trying the former suit should have been competent to try the subsequent suit itself - Sanyasi
Prasad Rao v Runku Lakshamayya, AIR 1977 AP 143.
5. The plain and grammatical meaning of the word "suit" occurring in clause "in a court
competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently
raised" of section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 includes the whole of the suit and not
a part of the suit. It is the whole of the suit which should be within the competence of the
Court at the earlier time and not a part of it - Gulab Bai v Manphool Bai, AIR 1962 SC 214.
6. It is the Court which decides the former suit, whose jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit
has to be considered and not the Court in which the former suit may have been filed -
Sheodan Singh v Daryao Kumar, AIR 1966 SC 1332.
7. In order that a decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the Court which
decided that suit must have been either: (a) a Court of exclusive jurisdiction, or (b) a Court of
concurrent jurisdiction "competent to try subsequent suit" at the time when the first suit was
instituted - Mohd Khalid v Chief Commissioner, AIR 1968 Del 13.

8. In the historic case of Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the doctrine of res judicata is of
universal application was established.
In this case, petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226
of the Constitution. But the suit was dismissed. Then they filed independent petitions in the
Supreme Court under the writ jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution.
The court held that the rule of res judicata applies to a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution. If a petition is filed by the petitioner in the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution and it is dismissed on the basis of merits, it would be operated as res judicata to
bar a similar petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Introduction to Parties to a Suit
 Overview:
 Order 1: Contains 13 rules outlining the provisions related to the parties to a suit. It
clarifies who can sue or be sued, addressing the joinder of parties, representative suits,
and misjoinder/non-joinder issues.
 Definition and Importance :
 Plaintiffs: Individuals or entities initiating the lawsuit.
 Defendants: Individuals or entities against whom the lawsuit is brought.
Importance: Identifying the correct parties ensures the suit's effectiveness and proper
resolution. Incorrect or incomplete identification can result in delays, additional costs, and
potential dismissal of the suit.
 The main principles underlying Order 1 are:
 All persons who have a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit should be made
parties, either as plaintiffs or defendants.
 No person with no interest in the subject matter of the suit should be made a party,
either as a plaintiff or defendant.
 The court has the power to order separate trials or make other orders as may be
expedient in case of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties.
 Order 1 provides a comprehensive framework for determining the appropriate parties
in civil suits. It addresses various scenarios, such as joinder, misjoinder, non-joinder,
and representative suits, ensuring procedural efficiency and fairness.
Who Can Be a Party?
 Necessary Parties (Order 1, Rule 10(2)):
 Parties without whom the court cannot pass an effective decree.
 Example: In a co-ownership property dispute, all co-owners are necessary parties.

 Proper Parties:
 Parties whose presence is essential for a comprehensive decision.
 Example: In a lease dispute, tenants might be proper parties but not necessarily
required for an effective decree.

A tenant is required to be evicted from the tenanted premises by the landlord on the ground
that he (tenant) has violated a provision of the agreement that he will not sublet the premises.
So the landlord filed a suit for eviction against the tenant. In this case, the tenant is a
necessary party; however, the sub-tenant will be a proper party.
Joinder of Parties
 Joinder of Plaintiffs (Order 1, Rule 1):
 All persons may join as plaintiffs if they seek relief arising from the same transaction
or series of transactions.
 Example: Multiple people injured in the same accident can join as plaintiffs in a suit
against the responsible party.
 Joinder of Defendants (Order 1, Rule 3):
 All persons can be joined as defendants if a right to relief is claimed against them in
respect of the same transaction or series of transactions.
 Example: Multiple parties involved in a fraudulent transaction can be jointly sued.
Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties
 Misjoinder (Order 1, Rule 9):
 Incorrectly including parties in a suit.
 Consequence: The suit is not defeated by misjoinder; the court can rectify it by
striking out unnecessary parties.
 Non-joinder:
 Failure to include necessary parties.
 Consequence: This can lead to dismissal if essential for passing a decree.

 Remedies:
 Order 1, Rule 10(2): The court may add, strike out, or substitute parties as necessary.
 Example: If a party realizes that a necessary defendant was not included, the court can
add that defendant to ensure complete adjudication.
Representative Suit (Order 1 Rule 8)

 Allows one or more persons to sue or defend on behalf of a group with the same
interest.

 Procedure:
 Court permission is required.
 Notice to all interested parties must be given.
 Example: A suit by residents of a locality against a polluting factory.
  Representative suits are an efficient way to handle cases involving large groups with a
common interest. They ensure that the interests of all affected parties are represented
without the need for each individual to file separate suits.

Addition, Substitution, and Striking Out of Parties

 Addition of Parties (Order 1, Rule 10(2)):

 The court may add a party whose presence is necessary for a complete adjudication of
the issues. Example: Adding a legal heir in a property dispute after the original party's
death.

 Substitution of Parties:
 Applicable in cases like death, incapacity, or assignment of interest.
 Example: Substituting a deceased party's legal representative.

 Striking Out of Parties (Order 1, Rule 10(2)):

 Removing unnecessary parties from the suit to streamline proceedings. Example:
Striking out a party incorrectly included in the lawsuit.

 Case Laws and Examples:

 Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005): Clarified the principles of adding necessary
parties.
 Benares Bank Ltd. v. Bhagwan Das: Discussed misjoinder and non-joinder.

Cases:

 In the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, the Supreme Court has laid down the
following two tests to determine whether a particular party is a necessary party to a
proceeding or not:

 There must be a right to some relief against such a party in respect of the matter in
issue.
 It is not possible to pass an effective decree in his absence.

 In Anil Kumar v. Shivnath, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the object of the
rule of necessity is to bring on record all persons who are parties to the dispute
relating to the subject matter so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and
inconvenience.

CAUSE OF ACTION

 A cause of action is said to consist of two parts, legal theory (the legal wrong the
plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant).
Sometimes a situation may arise where the facts or circumstances create Multiple
Causes of Action but in order to avoid the subsequent hurdle of Order 2 Rule 2, the
plaintiff must place his entire claim for the cause of action and not in parts.
 As per Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, "cause of action" suggests any
violation of a legal right that must be produced in favour of the plaintiff to
substantiate his claim.
  "Cause of action" means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of
material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to
the reliefs claimed in the suit.

CAUSE OF ACTION

 Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr.2006 6 SCC 207, it was held by
the Supreme Court that:
 "Cause of action" means, in the restricted sense, the circumstances which constitute
an infringement of the right or the immediate cause for the reaction. In the wider
sense it implies the conditions required for the enforcement of the action, including
the violation of the right and the violation combined with the power itself.
 Every circumstance must be established, as distinguished from every piece of
evidence that is necessary, to prove that every fact is part of the "cause of action."

ORDER II RULE II

 Sub-rule (1)Every suit must include the whole claim.

 Sub-rule (2)If a plaintiff omits to sue for or relinquishes any part of his claim, he shall
not afterwards sue for the part omitted or relinquished.
 Sub-rule (3)A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of
action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits to sue for all such reliefs,
he cannot subsequently sue for any relief so omitted, except with the leave of the
court.
 The effect of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code is to create a bar for the plaintiff who had
earlier claimed particular relief of a breach of his rights, from filing a second suit,with
a view to claim other relief as not claimed earlier, based on the same cause of action.
It does not however bar a second suit based on a different and diverse cause of action.

EXAMPLES

 Example 1 - Contractual Claim

 Scenario

 A contractor performs three tasks under a single contract: Task A, Task B, and
Task C.

 Inclusion

 The contractor must include claims for all tasks in one suit.

 Omission

 If the contractor sues only for Task A, he cannot later sue for Task B and Task
C.
 Example 2 - Tenant and Landlord Dispute

 Scenario

 A landlord sues a tenant for unpaid rent for January.

 Inclusion

 The landlord must include claims for all unpaid months in one suit.

 Omission

 If the landlord omits February's rent, they cannot file a separate suit for
February's rent later.
CASES

 Mohd. Khalil Khan vs Mahbub Ali Mian (1948)

 The court held that the plaintiff must include the whole claim regarding the
cause of action in one suit. The court reinforced the rule against splitting
claims.

 Deva Ram vs Ishwar Chand (1996)

 The court emphasised the need for the plaintiff to bring all claims arising out
of the same transaction in one suit. Ensured judicial consistency and
efficiency.

 Gurbux Singh Vs. Bhura Lal 1964 AIR SC 1810

"In order that a plea of a bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3), Civil Procedure Code should succeed
the defendant who raises the plea must make out (1) that the second suit was in respect of the
same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based; (2) that in respect of that
cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; (3) that being thus entitled to
more than one relief the plaintiff, without leave obtained from the Court, omitted to sue for
the relief for which the second suit had been filed.

Key Differences - Order II Rule 2 vs. Res Judicata

 Order II Rule 2
 Prevents splitting of claims.
 Ensures inclusion of all claims related to the same cause of action in one suit.
  Operates at the time of filing the suit.

 Res Judicata
 Prevents re-litigation of the same issue.
 Ensures finality of judgment.
 Operates after a final judgment has been rendered.

 Example - Order II Rule 2 vs. Res Judicata

 Scenario 1: Order II Rule 2

 Plaintiff sues for part of a debt but omits the rest.

 Cannot later sue for the omitted part of a claim.

 Scenario 2: Res Judicata

 The plaintiff sues for a debt, and the court renders a final judgment.

 Cannot bring the same issue to court again.

 Constructive res judicata deals with grounds of attack and defence which ought to
have been raised, but not raised, whereas Order II Rule 2 of the Code relates to reliefs
which ought to have been claimed on the same cause of action but not claimed.

Rule 3 : Joinder of causes of action.

 (1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of
action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly, and any plaintiffs
 having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant
or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.
 (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit
shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject matters at the date of
instituting the suit.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

 When to Apply Rule 2

 Scenarios requiring the inclusion of the whole claim.
 When to Apply Rule 3
 Scenarios allowing joinder of multiple causes of action.

 Examples
 Rule 2: Claiming all amounts due under a single contract.
 Rule 3: Combining claims for breach of contract and tort against the same defendant.

EXAMPLES

 Example 1:If a plaintiff has claims for breach of contract and tort against the same
defendant, they can combine these claims in one suit.
 Example 2:A person sues for specific performance of a contract and also for damages
for non-performance, combining both causes in one suit.
 Example 3:
 A plaintiff sues for recovery of money lent and for damages caused by the defendant's
fraudulent misrepresentation, combining both claims in one suit.
 Example 4:
 A customer sues a builder for breach of contract and also for negligence leading to
property damage, combining both causes in one suit.

PLEADINGS GENERALLY ORDER 6:

Order VI: Pleadings Generally

 Pleading means plaint or written statement (Order VI Rule 1);

  Plaint - The detailed application submitted by the plaintiff in Court seeking relief
against the defendant;
 Written Statement – The defendant’s detailed reply to the Plaint filed to contest the
suit;

 Pleadings and Rules of Pleadings are the foundational elements of civil litigation,
comprising the formal written statements submitted by parties to outline their
respective claims and defences.
 These documents include the plaint filed by the plaintiff and the written
statement submitted by the defendant.
 The rules of pleadings, as outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC),
particularly in Orders VI, VII, and VIII, mandate that pleadings must contain a
concise statement of material facts but exclude evidence.
 They must clearly articulate the cause of action, the relief sought, and specific details
where necessary, such as in cases of fraud or misrepresentation.
 The purpose of these rules is to ensure clarity, prevent surprises during the trial, and
facilitate a fair adjudication process by focusing the court's attention on the real issues
in dispute.
 Accurate and detailed pleadings help streamline the judicial process and uphold the
principles of justice.
What are Pleadings?

 Pleadings are the formal written statements submitted by the parties in a civil case.

 They outline the issues in dispute and form the basis for the trial.
Purpose of Pleadings:

 To inform the parties and the court of the claims and defences.
 To ensure clarity and prevent surprises during the trial.
Importance of Pleadings: Why Pleadings Matter:

 Define the issues in dispute.

 Inform the parties of the case they must meet.
 Prevent surprises during the trial.
 Assist the court in the fair adjudication of the case.
Order VI: Pleadings Generally

 Pleadings are only statements of Material facts; not evidence (R. 2);
 Pleadings require particulars of alleged breaches, or the conditions precedent (Rs. 4 &
6);
 Pleadings signed by party and pleader (R. 14);
 Disclosure of party’s registered address (R. 14A);
 Pleadings to be verified (R. 15);

 Rule 1: Definition of Pleadings

Pleadings include plaints and written statements.

 Rule 2: Pleading to State Material Facts

Pleadings must contain a concise statement of material facts, not evidence.

Illustration: A plaint stating that the defendant owed money without detailing the entire
transaction.

 Case Law: Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR 1976 SC 744: Emphasizes the
need for clarity and specificity in pleadings.
RULE 4: Particulars to be Given Where Necessary

 Details required for allegations of misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, etc.

 Example: A case involving fraud must specify the fraudulent acts with details.
 Case Law: Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280: Highlights the
necessity for particularity in cases involving fraud or undue influence. Bhagwati
Prasad v. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735.
Verification of Pleadings (Order VI Rule 15)

 Verification of Pleadings is a crucial step in the litigation process where the parties
affirm the truthfulness of the facts stated in their pleadings. Under Order VI, Rule 15
of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), each pleading must be verified by the party or
any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
 This involves signing a verification statement at the end of the pleading, declaring that
the information provided is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.
 The verification must specify which statements are based on personal knowledge and
which are based on information received and believed to be true. This process helps
ensure the integrity and accuracy of the pleadings, discourages false or frivolous
claims, and holds the parties accountable for the statements made in their submissions
to the court.
Amendment of Pleadings (Order VI Rule 17)

 Normally parties are not permitted to amend;

 Amendments however may be allowed for determining the real questions in
controversy;
 Court may impose terms and conditions;
 Normally no amendment after the commencement of trial;
 Rejection of amendment despite obtaining leave (R. 18);
Amendment of Pleadings (Order VI Rule 17)

 Amendment of pleadings refers to the modification or correction of the original

statements made by the parties in a legal dispute to reflect the issues in controversy
accurately. Under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the court
is empowered to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings,
provided such amendments are necessary for determining the real questions in
controversy between the parties.
  The primary objective of permitting amendments is to ensure that the legal process is
fair and just, allowing parties to correct errors or include additional facts that emerged
after the initial pleadings. This flexibility prevents the multiplicity of suits and ensures
that justice is served based on the most accurate and complete information available.
However, amendments should not cause injustice to the opposing party and should be
made in good faith.

Order 7 - Plaint (CPC)

u Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is pivotal in civil litigation as it

prescribes the rules for filing a plaint. A plaint is the document through which a
plaintiff initiates a civil lawsuit, outlining the grievance and the relief sought.
Understanding the intricacies of Order 7 is essential for legal practitioners to
effectively draft plaints that meet all procedural requirements and avoid potential
pitfalls.
u Definition and Purpose
u A plaint is a legal document filed by the plaintiff that sets forth the claims against the
defendant. Its primary purpose is to provide a clear and concise statement of the facts
constituting the cause of action, informing the defendant of the allegations and the
relief sought. This foundational document initiates the judicial process and frames the
issues to be adjudicated.
u Order 7 Rule 1 lists the essential elements that must be included in a plaint.
u These include: the name of the court where the suit is brought; the names,
descriptions, and residences of the plaintiff and defendant; a statement of the facts
constituting the cause of action and when it arose; the facts showing that the court has
jurisdiction; the relief which the plaintiff claims; and the value of the subject matter of
the suit for jurisdictional purposes, if applicable.
u Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram (1978):
u The case underlined the necessity of including all particulars in the plaint to
make a strong case.
Relief to be Specifically Stated in a Plaint

• As per Rule 7 of Order VII, every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the
plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to
ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just
to the same extent as if it had been asked for.
• As per Rule 8 of Order VII, where the plaintiff seeks relief in respect of several
distinct claims or causes of action founded upon separate and distinct grounds, they
shall be stated as far as may be separately and distinctly.
Procedure on Admitting Plaint
As per Rule 9 of Order VII, where the Court orders that the summons be served on the
defendants in the manner provided in Rule 9 of Order V, it will direct the plaintiff to present
as many copies of the plaint on plain paper as there are defendants within seven days from
the date of such order along with requisite fee for service of summons on the defendants.
Return of Plaint RULE 10

• Rule 10 deals with the return of plaint. It states that -

 u (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be
returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.
u Explanation. — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of
appeal or revision may direct after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the
return of the plaint under this sub-rule.
u (2) Procedure on returning plaint —On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse
thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it,
and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it.
u Under Order 7 Rule 10, a court may return a plaint for presentation to the proper court
if it finds that it lacks jurisdiction. The procedure involves the court endorsing the
date of presentation and the date of return on the plaint.
u The case of K. Narsimha Rao v. K. L. Madhava Rao (2010) illustrates the necessity of
ensuring that the plaint is filed in the appropriate court to avoid jurisdictional issues.

Rejection of Plaint RULE 11

u Order 7 Rule 11 provides the grounds on which a plaint can be rejected. These include
failure to disclose a cause of action, undervaluation of the relief claimed, insufficient
stamping, and the suit being barred by any law.
u A landmark case illustrating this is Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020),
where the Supreme Court held that a plaint must disclose a clear cause of action to
proceed, emphasizing the importance of a well-drafted plaint.

• Rule 11 deals with the rejection of plaint. It states that -

• The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: —

u (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action.

u (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required
by the Court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the Court, fails
to do so.
u (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon
paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to
supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do
so.
u (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any
law.
u (e) where it is not filed in duplicate.
u (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.
Procedure on Rejecting Plaint

u Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or
supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an
exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-
paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to
extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
u As per Rule 12 of Order VII, where a plaint is rejected, the Judge shall record
an order to that effect with the reasons for such an order.
 u In Mayar H.K. Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express (2006),
the Supreme Court held that the grounds for rejection of plaint specified in Rule 11
of Order VII of CPC are not exhaustive.
u In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asst. Charity Commr. (2004), the Supreme Court held
that a plaint cannot be rejected in part and retained in part. It should be rejected as a
whole.
Production of Documents (Rule 14)

u Under Order 7 Rule 14, the plaintiff must submit a list of documents relied upon and
produce the original documents in court. This rule ensures that all documentary
evidence is disclosed at the outset, facilitating a fair trial. In Shiv Kumar Chadha v.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993), the significance of producing original
documents was highlighted to substantiate the claims made in the plaint.
u Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993):

• The case focused on the significance of producing original documents to substantiate

the claims made in the plaint.

ORDER 8 - WRITTEN STATEMENT (CPC)

 Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) delineates the rules and requirements
for filing a written statement by the defendant. The written statement is a critical
document in civil litigation, as it contains the defendant's response to the plaint,
including any defences and counterclaims. Understanding Order 8 is essential for
effectively defending against a lawsuit and ensuring compliance with procedural
rules.
 Definition and Purpose: A written statement is the formal response by the defendant
to the plaintiff’s plaint. Its purpose is to refute the allegations made by the plaintiff,
present the defendant’s version of the facts, and outline any legal defences. The
written statement plays a crucial role in framing the issues for trial and setting the
stage for the litigation process.
TIME FRAME FOR FILING (RULE 1)

 Order 8 Rule 1 specifies the time frame for filing a written statement, which is
generally 30 days from the date of service of the summons. The court may extend this
period to a maximum of 90 days for valid reasons. This strict timeline underscores the
importance of timely response in civil proceedings.
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-FILING (RULE 10)

 If the defendant fails to file a written statement within the prescribed time, the court
may pronounce judgment against the defendant or make an order relating to the suit as
it deems fit.
 In the case of *Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah (1955)*, the Supreme
Court emphasized that procedural rules should not be strictly construed to deny justice
but highlighted the need for adherence to timelines to avoid undue delays.
DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS (RULE 3)
  Order 8 Rule 3 requires the defendant to specifically deny each allegation in the plaint
that they dispute. General denials are not sufficient. Specific denials help in clearly
defining the issues for trial.
 The case *Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008)* illustrated the necessity of
specific denials to avoid deemed admissions.

NEW FACTS AND LEGAL DEFENSES (RULE 2)

 The defendant may include any new facts or legal defences in the written statement
that were not mentioned in the plaint. These defences can include set-offs or
counterclaims.
 The case *Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi (2005)* showcased the importance of
including all relevant defences in the written statement.

ORDER 8 RULE 6: SET-OFF

 Order 8 Rule 6 of the CPC allows a defendant to claim a set-off against the plaintiff’s
demand. A set-off is a reciprocal claim by the defendant, effectively reducing the
amount the defendant owes to the plaintiff by the amount the plaintiff owes to the
defendant. For a set-off to be allowed, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. The claim must be for an ascertained sum of money.

2. It must be legally recoverable.
3. The claim should arise out of the same transaction or be in the nature of cross-
demands.
4. The parties must fill the same character in both the original suit and the set-off
claim.

 The law recognizes two types of set-offs:

 Legal set-off, which is explicitly provided under Order VIII Rule 6 of the Civil
Procedure Code (CPC), and
 Equitable set-off, which is based on principles of fairness.

 LEGAL SETOFF: It is limited to the scope of the original lawsuit and cannot
introduce new elements. The claims of both parties are adjusted in favour of the party
with the higher amount.
 If A files a lawsuit against B seeking compensation for trespass, and B holds a
promissory note worth Rs. 1000 from A, B can claim a set-off by deducting that
amount from any sum that A may recover in the lawsuit.
 This is possible because all the requirements for set-off under Order VIII Rule 6 are
fulfilled. Both amounts become definite pecuniary demands once A recovers.
 EQUITABLE SETOFF: The defendant can claim even an unascertained sum of
money if the cross demands arise from the same transaction or are closely connected.
This prevents the need for filing a separate lawsuit. SS
 However, it’s important to note that unlike legal set-off, which is the defendant’s right
under the CPC, the application of equitable set-off is solely at the court’s discretion.
 If A sues B to recover Rs. 50,000 based on a contract, B can claim a set-off for
damages suffered due to A’s breach of the same contract.
ORDER 8 RULE 6A: COUNTERCLAIM

 Order 8 Rule 6A introduces the concept of a counterclaim, allowing the defendant to

assert a claim against the plaintiff. Unlike a set-off, a counterclaim is an independent
cause of action that can exceed the amount claimed by the plaintiff and may relate to a
different transaction.
 The counterclaim is treated as a separate suit and decided along with the original
claim.
 The counterclaim must be within the court’s jurisdiction.
 It must be filed with the written statement or with the court's permission at a later
stage.
 The plaintiff is required to respond to the counterclaim in the same manner as a
defendant responds to a plaint.

DETAILED ILLUSTRATION:

 Consider a hypothetical scenario where a plaintiff, Mr. A, files a suit against the
defendant, Mr. B, for non-payment of Rs. 1,00,000 for goods sold. Mr. B, in his
written statement, claims a set-off of Rs. 30,000 for damages caused by defective
goods supplied by Mr. A. Additionally, Mr. B files a counterclaim for Rs. 50,000,
claiming that Mr. A owes him this amount for a separate contract where Mr. A failed
to deliver the promised services.
 Set-Off: Mr. B’s claim for Rs. 30,000 is an ascertained sum arising from the same
transaction of goods sold and delivered.This claim is legally recoverable as it pertains
to damages for defective goods.The set-off reduces the amount Mr. B owes to Mr. A
to Rs. 70,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 - Rs. 30,000).
 Counterclaim: Mr. B’s counterclaim of Rs. 50,000 relates to a separate transaction but
is within the jurisdiction of the court.The counterclaim is independent and exceeds the
amount claimed by the plaintiff.Mr. A must respond to this counterclaim, and the
court will adjudicate both the original claim and the counterclaim together.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS:

 The inclusion of set-offs and counterclaims in a written statement provides defendants

with a powerful tool to assert their rights and reduce or eliminate their liability. It
ensures that all related disputes between the parties are resolved in a single judicial
proceeding, promoting judicial economy and avoiding multiple suits.
SUBSEQUENT PLEADINGS (RULE 9)

 Order 8 Rule 9 permits the defendant to file additional pleadings with the court’s
permission, provided they are necessary to address new facts or developments. This
rule ensures that the defendant has the opportunity to fully present their case.
 The case *Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo (1988)* highlighted the flexibility
provided by subsequent pleadings.
 In effect, any additional pleading after the filing of the defendant’s written statement
is at the sole discretion of the court, which is only allowed to come on record if the
party can prove that the pleading needs to address new facts, circumstances or
grounds that have been raised, which were not covered in the initial pleading.
  The plaintiff usually seeks the leave of the court to file a ‘replication’ in response to
the new facts and grounds alleged by the defendant in its written statement, to which
the Defendant has the right to respond by way of a ‘rejoinder’.
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

 Failure to comply with the rules of Order 8 can result in adverse consequences for the
defendant, including the potential for an ex parte decree. Adherence to these rules is
crucial to effectively defending against the plaintiff’s claims and ensuring a fair trial.

Examination of Parties by the Court order 10

Ascertainment Whether Allegations in Pleadings are Admitted or Denied:

1. Purpose: To identify which allegations in the pleadings are disputed and which are
admitted by the parties. This helps in simplifying the trial by focusing on disputed
facts.
2. Procedure: At the first hearing, the court examines each party or their pleader to
determine whether they admit or deny the allegations in the pleadings. The court
records these admissions and denials.
3. Significance: This process helps clarify the real issues in dispute and ensures that the
trial is confined to those issues, thereby preventing unnecessary evidence and
arguments on admitted facts.

Oral Examination of Parties:

 "At the first hearing of the suit, the Court—

(a) shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit, examine orally
such of the parties present in Court as it deems fit;
(b) may orally examine any person able to answer any material question relating to
the suit, by whom any party is accompanied at the hearing.”

1. Purpose: To clarify ambiguities in the pleadings and ascertain the real issues in
dispute. This preliminary examination can help the court understand the real nature of
the controversy and the precise points at issue.
2. Scope: The court may orally examine any party or person accompanying them who
can answer material questions related to the suit.
3. Discretion: The court has the discretion to determine the extent of the examination
and the questions to be asked.
4. Significance: This helps ensure that the court and the parties clearly understand the
issues, reducing surprises and delays during the trial.
5. Examination of Accompanying Persons:
Apart from the parties, the court may also examine any person accompanying the
parties who can answer material questions related to the suit. This provision ensures
 that the court can gather necessary information even if the primary party is not fully
knowledgeable about all aspects of the case.

1. First Hearing of the Suit:

The examination under Rule 2 takes place at the first hearing. The "first hearing"
refers to the date on which the court first applies its mind to the merits of the case,
which may involve framing of issues or hearing arguments.
2. Avoidance of Surprises:
Early examination of parties helps avoid surprises during the trial, as parties are
required to disclose material facts and issues upfront. This contributes to a fair trial by
ensuring that both parties are fully aware of the case they have to meet.

 Illustration
 In a suit for breach of contract, if the plaintiff's pleadings are vague regarding the
specific terms alleged to have been breached, the court may use Rule 2 to orally
question the plaintiff. The court may ask questions like:

 "Can you specify the terms of the contract that you believe were violated?"
 "Did you provide notice to the defendant regarding the alleged breach?"

 Such questions help in clarifying the plaintiff's case and assist in framing appropriate
issues for the trial.

Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi [(1960) 1 SCR

773]- The Supreme Court emphasized that the court can examine the parties at the first
hearing to ascertain the real matter in dispute. This examination is a judicial exercise
aimed at understanding the nature of the controversy and not merely a procedural
formality.

Substance of Examination to be Written

1. Purpose: To maintain an accurate record of the oral examination conducted under

Rule 2.
2. .Procedure: The judge must reduce the substance of the examination to writing. This
written record becomes part of the case record.
3. Significance: This ensures transparency and accountability, providing a reference for
the court and the parties during the trial and any subsequent appeals.
4. The substance of the examination must be reduced to writing by the judge or under
his direction and forms part of the record.

Kanhaiya Lal v. Dr. D.R. Gade [AIR 1993 MP 284]: The court held that non-
compliance with Rule 3 does not vitiate the trial unless it causes a failure of justice.

Consequence of Refusal or Omission to Answer

1. Purpose: To deal with situations where a party refuses or fails to answer material
questions during the examination.
2. Court's Power: The court may draw adverse inferences against a party that refuses or
omits to answer. This means the court can assume that the refusal or omission
indicates the truth of the allegations or the falsity of the party's case.
3. Significance: This rule is a deterrent against non-cooperation and ensures that parties
are forthcoming with relevant information, promoting fair and efficient adjudication.

1. If a party refuses or omits to answer, the court may draw an adverse inference against
that party.

Illustration: If a defendant refuses to answer questions about their financial status in a

suit for recovery of debt, the court may presume that they have the means to pay the debt.

Costs

1. Purpose: To provide the court with the discretion to award costs related to
applications and inquiries made under Order 10.
2. Scope: Costs may include expenses incurred during the examination of parties and
any subsequent applications made under this Order.
3. Discretion: The court's discretion in awarding costs allows it to penalize parties for
non-cooperation or frivolous applications, thereby discouraging unnecessary delays
and promoting efficient case management.
4. The costs of examination are at the discretion of the court and may be awarded to the
party in whose favour the decision is made.

N. G. Dastane v. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326]: The Supreme Court observed that the
discretion regarding costs should be exercised judicially.

RULE 1: FRAMING OF ISSUES

1. Explanation: The court is required to frame issues based on the pleadings and
examination of the parties. Issues can be of fact or law.

Kunju Kesavan v. M. M. Philip [AIR 1964 SC 164]: The Supreme Court held that it is
the duty of the court to frame all issues of law and fact arising from the pleadings.

2. Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and
denied by the other.

3. Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact that a plaintiff must allege
to show a right to sue, or a defendant must allege to constitute his defense.

4. Distinct issues: Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the
other forms the subject of a distinct issue.
5. Framing and recording issues: At the first hearing, the court shall read the plaint and
written statements, ascertain the material propositions at variance, and frame and
record the issues for decision.

 Purpose: To identify the points in dispute and streamline the trial process.Types of
Issues: Issues of fact and issues of law.

Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia, AIR 2001 SC 490 The court emphasized the
need for clear and precise issues to avoid unnecessary delays.

 Illustration: In a breach of contract case, the plaintiff claims non-performance by the

defendant, while the defendant asserts performance or justifiable reasons for non-
performance. The issues framed would focus on whether there was a breach and the
justification for it.

RULE 2: COURT TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT ON ALL ISSUES

1. Issues of law and fact: Issues are of two kinds, issues of law and issues of fact.
2. Preliminary issue: Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the
court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue
of law only, it shall try that issue first.

Explanation:

1. Issues of Law: Questions about the legal principles applicable to the case.
2. Issues of Fact: Questions about the facts or evidence presented.

 The court must pronounce judgment on all issues unless it finds that a case can be
disposed of on an issue of law alone.
 Illustration: In a suit for specific performance, if the issue of limitation can dispose
of the case, the court may decide that issue first.

Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735 The court highlighted the
importance of distinguishing between issues of law and fact for efficient case
management.

Illustration: In a case involving the validity of a will, issues of law could pertain to the
interpretation of testamentary laws, while issues of fact could concern whether the will
was duly executed.

RULE 3: MATERIALS FROM WHICH ISSUES MAY BE FRAMED

1. Court to frame issues from all materials: The court may frame the issues from all
material propositions contained in the pleadings and the allegations made by the
parties.

6. The court can frame issues based on the pleadings, documents, and statements made
by the parties, ensuring that all relevant matters are addressed.

Explanation: The court may frame issues from:

 Allegations made in the pleadings.

 Allegations made by the parties.
 Contents of documents produced by either party.

Ramesh Kumar v. Furu Ram [AIR 2011 SC 423]: The Supreme Court held that the
court should carefully peruse the pleadings and documents before framing issues.

Ishwarbhai v. Motibhai, (2005) 4 SCC 45 The Supreme Court emphasised the role of
pleadings in framing issues and the necessity of considering all relevant materials.

Illustration In a property dispute, if the plaintiff alleges ownership based on a sale deed
and the defendant claims possession by adverse possession, the issues would revolve
around the validity of the sale deed and the claim of adverse possession.

RULE 4: COURT MAY EXAMINE WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS BEFORE

FRAMING ISSUES

 Admissions and denials: The court shall record the admissions and denials made by
the parties at the first hearing.
 Explanation: The purpose is to narrow down the issues by recording what is admitted
and what is denied, thus focusing the trial on the actual points of contention.

 The court can, at its discretion, examine witnesses or documents before framing
issues.
 Illustration: In a suit for partition, the court may examine the property records to
ascertain the disputed properties before framing issues. In a defamation case, if the
defendant admits to making a statement but denies it was defamatory, the issue would be
whether the statement was defamatory.

H.V. Thakur v. H.K. Madan, AIR 2000 SC 499 The court stressed the importance of
clear admissions and denials in simplifying the trial process.

RULE 5: AGREEMENT OF PARTIES TO BE RECORDED

Any agreement between the parties to settle any matter in dispute must be recorded, and
the court may then frame the issues accordingly.

State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills [AIR 1987 SC 1359]: The
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of recording agreements between parties to
avoid future disputes

RULE 6: QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT

If the court is satisfied that the case can be decided on a question of law or fact, it may
proceed to determine that question and pass judgment accordingly.

Illustration: If the defendant challenges the jurisdiction of the court, the court may
decide this issue before proceeding with the trial.