1

Jurisdiction of Courts under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides a detailed framework that governs civil litigation in India. The concept
of jurisdiction is fundamental because it defines the power of a court to adjudicate a particular case based on various
parameters such as territory, subject matter, and the financial value involved.

1. Types of Jurisdiction under the CPC

1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction
3. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
4. Original and Appellate Jurisdiction
5. Jurisdiction by Consent and Waiver

Each type of jurisdiction is governed by specific provisions, and I will explain these in detail, including the relevant
sections, orders, rules, and important judgments.

1.1 Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction refers to the geographical area within which a court can exercise its authority. Civil cases can
only be heard in courts that have territorial jurisdiction over the area where the cause of action arose or where the
defendant resides or conducts business.

Relevant Provisions:

 Section 16: Suits Relating to Immovable Property

Suits concerning immovable property (like possession, partition, mortgage, or foreclosure) must be filed in the
court where the property is located.

 Section 17: Suits Where Immovable Property is Situated in Different Jurisdictions

When immovable property spans different territories under different courts, a suit can be instituted in any court
where a part of the property is located, as long as the entire property is part of the same suit.

 Section 18: Suits When Local Limits are Uncertain

If there is any uncertainty regarding the local limits of the jurisdiction of courts, the case can be filed in any court
within which the property is situated, or the defendant resides or carries on business.

 Section 19: Suits for Compensation for Wrong to Person or Movables

This section states that suits for wrongs done to a person (such as defamation) or movable property (such as
trespass) can be filed either in the court where the wrong occurred or where the defendant resides.

 Section 20: Other Suits to be Filed Where Defendants Reside or Cause of Action Arises
This is the catch-all provision for other types of suits. It states that in cases not covered by the preceding sections,
a suit can be instituted where the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action arises
(either wholly or partly).

Landmark Judgments:

1. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004)

The Supreme Court held that a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of a statute could be filed in a court
where part of the cause of action arises. This clarified the territorial jurisdiction in writ petitions involving central
laws.

2. Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanhaiya Lal (1935)

This case clarified that suits for recovery of money or movables could be filed either where the cause of action
arises or where the defendant resides.
 2

1.2 Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the monetary limits within which a court is competent to hear a case. The court can
only hear cases where the value of the subject matter falls within its prescribed financial limits.

Relevant Provisions:

 Section 6: Pecuniary Jurisdiction

This section specifies that no court has the jurisdiction to try suits in which the amount or value of the subject
matter exceeds its pecuniary limits. The pecuniary limits of different courts are determined by the respective
state legislations.

 Order VII Rule 1(f): Pleading in Suit

This rule specifies that every plaint must state the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purposes of
court fees and jurisdiction.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954)

The Supreme Court ruled that a decree passed by a court without pecuniary jurisdiction is a nullity. This means
that such a decree is void and can be challenged even at the appellate stage.

2. Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh (2002)

This case reaffirmed that when a court exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction, its decision is null and void, and it can
be set aside on that ground alone.

1.3 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to hear cases of a particular type or category. Some courts
are designated to hear only certain kinds of cases, such as family courts for matrimonial matters or tribunals for
administrative cases.

Relevant Provisions:

 Section 9: Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

Section 9 establishes that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless they are expressly
or impliedly barred by law. This means that if a dispute involves private rights, it can be heard by a civil court
unless the law specifically excludes it.

Suits that are Barred:

o Suits related to armed forces: Courts are barred from hearing matters related to service disputes within the
armed forces (Army Act, 1950).

o Religious or ecclesiastical matters: Civil courts cannot interfere in purely religious disputes that do not involve
legal rights (for example, disputes about spiritual practices).

o Matters under special tribunals: Disputes involving tax, land revenue, or industrial disputes that fall under
specific tribunals are excluded from the jurisdiction of civil courts.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Dhruv Green Field Ltd. v. Hukam Singh (2002)

This case held that if a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, any order or decree passed by it is null and void.
This underlines the fact that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties.
 3

2. Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai (2005)

The Supreme Court clarified that civil courts cannot intervene in matters purely ecclesiastical unless a civil right
is involved. This judgment emphasized the limits of subject-matter jurisdiction, especially in religious cases.

1.4 Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a case in the first instance, while appellate jurisdiction
refers to the power to review decisions of lower courts.

Relevant Provisions:

 Section 96: Appeal from Original Decree

Section 96 allows appeals from decrees passed by courts exercising original jurisdiction. The appellate court
reviews the decision and can affirm, reverse, or modify the decree of the lower court.

 Section 100: Second Appeal

Second appeals can be made only on "substantial questions of law." This provision ensures that not all cases can
go beyond the first appellate stage unless significant legal issues are involved.

 Order XLI to XLIII: Appeal from Orders

These orders cover the detailed procedural rules regarding how appeals are filed and entertained, including the
preparation of records, grounds of appeal, and hearing procedures.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury (1962)

The Supreme Court held that the appellate court must not reappreciate evidence but must focus on the legal
aspects of the case. This ruling provided clarity on the limits of appellate jurisdiction.

2. Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v. Rajat Vidyarthi (2009)

The Supreme Court ruled that second appeals should only be allowed if substantial questions of law are involved,
thus limiting the scope of second appeals to prevent an overflow of cases in higher courts.

1.5 Jurisdiction by Consent and Waiver

In some cases, the parties to a dispute may consent to the jurisdiction of a court, or they may waive their right to
challenge the jurisdiction. However, this applies only to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, and not to subject-
matter jurisdiction.

Relevant Provisions:

 Section 21: Objections to Jurisdiction

Section 21 provides that objections to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible
stage of the proceedings. If such objections are not raised at the first opportunity, the court will consider them
waived.

 Section 21A: Bar on Objection to Jurisdiction

In appellate proceedings, parties cannot raise objections to jurisdiction if they did not object at the trial court
stage.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath (1962)

The Supreme Court ruled that objections relating to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest stage of
 4

proceedings. If a party fails to raise an objection, it is considered waived, and the court can proceed with the
case.

2. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954)

The court reiterated that while objections to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction can be waived, objections to
subject-matter jurisdiction cannot. This is because subject-matter jurisdiction is fundamental to the authority of
the court.

Stages of a Suit under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides a comprehensive procedural framework for the conduct of civil suits
in India. A civil suit progresses through various well-defined stages, from the institution of the suit to the execution of
a decree. Each stage involves specific sections, orders, and rules laid out in the CPC, along with important judicial
pronouncements that provide clarity and guidance on how these provisions are applied.

1. Institution of Suit

A civil suit is formally initiated by filing a plaint, which is the statement of claims by the plaintiff. The plaint must
contain the facts constituting the cause of action, the relief sought, and other necessary particulars as prescribed by
law.

Relevant Provisions:

 Section 26: Institution of Suit

This section states that every suit is instituted by the presentation of a plaint in the prescribed manner. The suit
formally begins when the court accepts the plaint.

 Order IV, Rule 1: Suit to be Commenced by a Plaint

This rule mandates that a plaint must be submitted, containing details such as the name of the court, the names
of the parties, and the facts of the case. The plaint must also comply with the format and the court fees
prescribed by law.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020)

The Supreme Court held that the plaint should disclose a clear cause of action and that the court must reject the
plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action as required under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.

2. T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977)

The court ruled that a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action should be rejected at the earliest to prevent
abuse of the process of law. This case highlighted the importance of the scrutiny of plaints at the institution
stage.

2. Service of Summons

Once the plaint is filed, the next step is the service of summons. Summons is a legal document issued by the court to
the defendant, informing them about the suit and requiring them to appear in court and file a written statement.

Relevant Provisions:

 Section 27: Summons to Defendant

This section provides that summons shall be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claims of the
plaintiff.
 5

 Order V, Rule 1-30: Issue and Service of Summons

This order outlines the detailed procedure for issuing summons to the defendant, including modes of service
such as personal service, service by post, or service by publication when the defendant cannot be traced.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Vishnu Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (1998)

The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the service of summons is conducted properly and that
the defendant must have a fair opportunity to defend themselves. Any irregularity in the service of summons
could vitiate the proceedings.

2. Krishna Bahadur Singh v. Mst. Hanumanti Devi (1996)

In this case, the court ruled that the defendant cannot be penalized for failing to appear in court if the summons
was not served in accordance with the prescribed rules.

3. Filing of Written Statement

The next stage involves the filing of a written statement by the defendant. The written statement is the formal reply
to the plaint where the defendant admits or denies the allegations made by the plaintiff.

Relevant Provisions:

 Order VIII, Rule 1: Written Statement

This rule states that the defendant must file their written statement within 30 days from the date of service of
summons. The court may allow an extension of up to 90 days in total, but this is at the discretion of the court.

 Order VIII, Rule 5: Denial to be Specific

This rule requires that any denial of facts by the defendant must be specific and not evasive. A general denial is
not sufficient.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005)

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 90-day limitation for filing a written statement, emphasizing the
need to expedite proceedings and prevent unnecessary delays.

2. Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999)

The court ruled that if the defendant does not file a written statement within the prescribed time frame, the
court has the discretion to either proceed with the suit based on the plaint or impose penalties, including
proceeding ex-parte.

4. Framing of Issues

Once the written statement is filed, the next stage is the framing of issues. Issues are points of dispute between the
parties that need to be adjudicated by the court. These issues can be of fact or law.

Relevant Provisions:

 Order XIV, Rule 1-7: Framing of Issues

This order explains the procedure for framing issues based on the plaint and written statement. The court is
required to frame issues on every material proposition of fact or law.

 Section 141: Procedure in Miscellaneous Proceedings

This section clarifies that the procedure laid out for framing issues applies to all civil proceedings, including
interlocutory proceedings.
 6

Landmark Judgments:

1. Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia (2001)

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of framing precise and clear issues in civil suits. The judgment
stated that proper framing of issues is crucial for determining the scope of the trial and ensuring justice.

2. Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008)

The court ruled that a party cannot be granted relief on a claim for which no issue has been framed unless the
other party consents to it. This judgment highlighted the significance of framing issues to define the limits of the
court’s inquiry.

5. Evidence Stage

The evidence stage is where both parties present their evidence to substantiate their claims and defenses. This
involves the examination of witnesses and the submission of documentary evidence.

Relevant Provisions:

 Order XVIII, Rule 1-19: Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses
This order outlines the procedure for presenting evidence, including examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and
re-examination of witnesses. The plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the plaintiff’s claim
in full.

 Section 135: Witnesses

This section provides for the summoning of witnesses and compelling their attendance to give testimony before
the court.

Landmark Judgments:

1. State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977)

The Supreme Court held that while technical rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental inquiries, a
minimum standard of procedural fairness must be adhered to. This judgment emphasized the importance of
presenting credible evidence in court proceedings.

2. Laxmibai (Dead) v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Through LRs (2013)

The Supreme Court ruled that documentary evidence, when admitted, must be scrutinized thoroughly to
determine its evidentiary value. The court emphasized that documentary evidence generally carries more
weight than oral testimony.

6. Arguments

Once the evidence is recorded, both parties are given an opportunity to present their arguments. This stage involves
the legal representation of the plaintiff and defendant summarizing their cases based on the evidence presented.

Relevant Provisions:

 Order XVIII, Rule 2: Right to Begin and Order of Arguments

This rule specifies the order in which parties must present their arguments. Normally, the plaintiff begins,
followed by the defendant. If the defendant admits the claim or a major part of it, they may be allowed to
begin.

Landmark Judgments:
 7

1. R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami (2003)

The Supreme Court observed that parties must substantiate their arguments based on the material available on
record, and they cannot rely on facts not supported by evidence during the trial.

2. Hiralal v. Badkulal (1953)

In this case, the court clarified that during the argument stage, the focus must be on the material issues framed
by the court, and arguments must align with the evidence and issues raised during the trial.

7. Judgment and Decree

Once the arguments are concluded, the court pronounces the judgment. A judgment is the court’s formal decision
on the issues framed. A decree is a formal expression of the court's decision regarding the rights of the parties, which
follows the judgment.

Relevant Provisions:

 Section 33: Judgment and Decree

This section mandates that after the hearing, the court shall pronounce the judgment, and upon the judgment, a
decree shall be drawn up accordingly.

 Order XX, Rule 1-6: Judgment and Decree

This order provides the rules regarding the preparation, signing, and contents of the judgment and decree. The
court is required to pronounce the judgment within 30 days from the date of the conclusion of the hearing.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999)

The Supreme Court ruled that a judgment must be based on the evidence and must discuss each issue framed
during the trial. The judgment must be reasoned and should address all material facts.

2. Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul (1966)

The court emphasized that a judgment must be precise, clear, and must address all the issues framed by the
court. The judgment must contain a summary of the facts, the legal questions, the findings, and the final
decision.

8. Execution of Decree

The final stage of a suit is the execution of the decree, which involves enforcing the court’s decision. The successful
party can approach the court for execution if the losing party does not comply with the decree voluntarily.

Relevant Provisions:

 Section 36-74: Execution of Decrees

These sections lay down the process of enforcing decrees. A decree can be executed by attachment and sale of
the defendant’s property, arrest and detention, or by appointing a receiver.

 Order XXI: Execution of Decrees and Orders

This order provides the detailed procedure for executing decrees, including filing applications for execution,
modes of execution, and objections by judgment-debtors.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Mohammed Noor v. Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College Trust (2015)

The Supreme Court ruled that the execution of a decree must be in accordance with the law and cannot be
delayed unnecessarily. The court stressed the importance of the swift execution of decrees.
 8

2. Topanmal Chhotamal v. M/s Kundomal Gangaram (1960)

This case emphasized that a decree must be executed according to its terms, and the court cannot alter or
modify a decree during the execution process unless there is a legal basis for doing so.

Suits by and Against the Government or Public Officers under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) lays down specific provisions for suits by or against the government or public
officers to ensure that legal proceedings involving public authorities are conducted efficiently while safeguarding
public interests. The relevant provisions are Sections 79 to 82 and Order 27 of the CPC, which deal with special
procedural rules governing such suits.

1. Sections 79-82: Provisions for Suits by and Against Government or Public Officers

1.1 Section 79: Suits by or Against the Government

Section 79 of the CPC mandates that in any suit by or against the government, the entity to be sued must be named
as "Union of India" if it involves the central government, or the respective State Government if it involves a state.
Individual departments or officers are not made parties unless there is a specific reason to hold an officer personally
liable.

Key Points:

 Suits against Union Government: Must be filed in the name of the "Union of India."

 Suits against State Government: Must be filed in the name of the particular state, such as the "State of
Maharashtra."

 No suits against individual departments or officers unless they are sued in a personal capacity.

Landmark Judgments:

1. State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)

The Supreme Court held that the government could be held liable for tortious acts committed by its servants in
the course of their employment. In this case, the driver of a government vehicle was involved in an accident,
and the court ruled that the state was vicariously liable.

2. Director of Rationing v. Corporation of Calcutta (1960)

The Supreme Court clarified that individual government officers or departments cannot be sued for actions
carried out in their official capacity. The proper party is the government entity (either Union of India or the
concerned state).

1.2 Section 80: Notice Before Suing the Government or Public Officers

Section 80 of the CPC mandates that a two-month notice must be served to the government or a public officer
before a suit is instituted. This is intended to allow the government time to settle the dispute without the need for
litigation or to prepare its defense adequately.

Key Points:

 Two-month notice must be served before filing the suit, outlining the cause of action, the relief sought, and
other necessary details.

 Exceptions: In cases of urgency, the court may grant leave to file the suit without waiting for the two-month
notice period (under Section 80(2)).
 9

 Purpose: The notice period is designed to give the government or public officer time to settle the dispute out of
court if possible.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Ghanshyam Dass v. Dominion of India (1984)

The Supreme Court held that the notice under Section 80 is mandatory. If the plaintiff fails to serve the notice
properly, the suit may be dismissed. However, minor defects in the notice that do not prejudice the government
will not invalidate the suit.

2. Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar (1984)

The court ruled that a valid Section 80 notice must clearly state the cause of action. Failure to issue a notice or
improper issuance of the notice will result in the dismissal of the suit. However, the court also held that the
notice should not be interpreted too rigidly.

1.3 Section 81: Protection of Public Officers

Section 81 provides immunity to public officers for acts done in good faith in the course of their duties. This means
that public officers cannot be personally sued for actions performed as part of their official duties unless it is shown
that they acted beyond their authority or with malice.

Key Points:

 Public officers are not personally liable for acts performed in their official capacity.

 Immunity does not apply if the officer acted maliciously or outside the scope of their official duties.

Landmark Judgments:

1. State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh (1985)

The Supreme Court held that a public officer is immune from personal liability as long as they act within the
scope of their official duties. However, the immunity does not extend to acts of malice or those beyond the
scope of official duties.

2. Union of India v. K.P. Mandal (2004)

The court emphasized that public officers acting within the boundaries of their authority are entitled to
immunity from personal liability.

1.4 Section 82: Execution of Decrees Against Government or Public Officers

Section 82 prescribes special procedures for executing decrees against the government or public officers. Unlike
private parties, the government must be given sufficient time to satisfy the decree before coercive measures can be
taken.

Key Points:

 No decree against the government or public officers can be executed without providing adequate time for
the government to comply.

 If the decree is not satisfied within three months, the court may issue a certificate to initiate execution.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Union of India v. Kanti Lal Chhotalal (1990)

The court ruled that the government must be given a reasonable time to satisfy a decree, and the execution
 10

of decrees against the government must follow special procedures to avoid unnecessary hardship to public
functions.

2. State of Kerala v. Vijayan Pillai (1986)

The court emphasized that while the government must be given time to comply with a decree, it cannot
indefinitely delay the execution process. Public interest and respect for court orders must be balanced.

2. Order 27: Suits by or Against Public Officers

Order 27 of the CPC lays down the special procedures to be followed in suits involving public officers or the
government. It provides protections for public officers and sets out the procedural requirements for such suits,
ensuring that the government and public officers can efficiently participate in litigation without unnecessary
distractions from their official duties.

2.1 Order 27, Rule 1: Appearance by Government Pleader

Rule 1 mandates that the government or public officers must be represented by a Government Pleader in any suit.
The public officer involved in the suit is generally not required to appear personally unless ordered by the court.

Key Points:

 The government must be represented by a government pleader in suits involving public officers.

 Public officers are not required to appear personally unless the court specifically orders their presence.

Landmark Judgments:

1. State of Kerala v. Sudhir Kumar Sharma (2003)

The court held that public officers should not be unnecessarily burdened with personal appearances in court
unless required for justifiable reasons. The presence of a government pleader suffices in most cases.

2. Union of India v. Ram Kishan Aggarwal (1994)

The court reiterated that the presence of a government pleader ensures that public officers are not unduly
distracted from their official duties.

2.2 Order 27, Rule 2: Service of Summons

This rule provides that in suits involving the government or public officers, the summons must be served to the
government pleader, who acts as the representative of the government or the officer. The service of summons
follows a more structured procedure when compared to private parties.

Key Points:

 Summons must be served on the government pleader.

 The government pleader represents the government or the officer and prepares the defense accordingly.

2.3 Order 27, Rule 5B: Extension of Time for Government Officers

Rule 5B allows public officers additional time to file written statements or pleadings, recognizing that public officers
may require more time to gather necessary information and approvals for their defense.

Key Points:

 The court may grant extensions of time to public officers for filing written statements.
 11

 This rule recognizes the complexities involved in defending suits where government operations and
procedures are involved.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala (2012)

The Supreme Court held that public officers are entitled to reasonable extensions for filing pleadings to avoid
undue hardship while discharging their official duties.

2. Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987)

The court emphasized that when public officers are involved, a more liberal approach to granting time
extensions should be taken, considering the nature of government functions and bureaucracy.

2.4 Order 27, Rule 8A: Exemption from Arrest and Personal Appearance

Rule 8A provides that public officers are generally exempt from arrest in execution of a decree or personal
appearance in court unless the court specifically orders otherwise.

Key Points:

 Public officers are exempt from arrest in execution proceedings.

 Personal appearance in court is not required unless the court specifically orders it.

Landmark Judgments:

1. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao (1993)

The court held that public officers cannot be arrested in execution of decrees unless the court specifically
orders it under exceptional circumstances. The exemption is designed to protect officers from personal
liability for actions taken in their official capacity.

Suits by Aliens and Suits by or Against Foreign Rulers, Ambassadors, and Envoys under the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 (CPC)

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides specific provisions for suits by aliens and suits by or against foreign
rulers, ambassadors, and envoys. These provisions recognize the unique legal standing of foreign nationals and
sovereign states in India and provide for special legal procedures and immunities. The relevant sections for these
suits are Section 83 (Suits by Aliens) and Sections 84 to 87A (Suits by or against Foreign Rulers, Ambassadors, and
Envoys).

1. Suits by Aliens (Section 83)

1.1 Section 83: Suits by Aliens Residing in India

Section 83 of the CPC governs the legal capacity of aliens (foreign nationals) to sue in Indian courts. The general rule
is that aliens who are residing in India can file suits in Indian courts, but certain conditions and exceptions apply
based on the legal status of the country to which the alien belongs, especially in cases involving enemy aliens.

Key Provisions:

 Alien Residents: An alien (foreigner) who resides in India can file suits in Indian courts as long as the suit
pertains to matters within India.
 12

 Enemy Aliens: An enemy alien (a national of a country that is at war with India) cannot file a suit in Indian
courts unless they have been specifically permitted to do so by the Central Government.

This provision ensures that while foreign nationals are generally permitted to file suits in India, enemy aliens do not
have the same rights, as a matter of national security.

Important Definitions:

 Alien: A person who is not a citizen of India.

 Enemy Alien: A national of a country that is at war with India or a person residing in such a country.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991)

The Supreme Court emphasized that while aliens enjoy certain legal rights in India, these rights are subject to
the country's laws and policies, particularly in cases where national security is involved. The case highlighted
the limitations on the rights of enemy aliens.

2. Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail (1955)

In this case, the court explained that the legal rights of aliens, including the right to sue, are subject to
restrictions imposed by the government, especially in cases where there are security concerns or national
interest involved.

2. Suits by or Against Foreign Rulers, Ambassadors, and Envoys (Sections 84-87A)

2.1 Section 84: Suits by Foreign Rulers

Section 84 allows foreign rulers to file suits in Indian courts, provided they meet certain conditions. The section
provides that a foreign ruler may sue in India, but this right is subject to the condition that the foreign state has been
recognized by the Government of India.

Key Provisions:

 Recognition by Indian Government: A foreign ruler can file a suit in India only if the foreign state is
recognized by the Government of India. This recognition ensures that only sovereign states with diplomatic
relations with India can access Indian courts.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Pasha v. Khatoon (1952)

In this case, the court highlighted the principle that foreign rulers can exercise their right to sue in Indian
courts, but only when their state is recognized by the Government of India.

2. Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1958)

This case discussed the importance of sovereignty and recognition in suits involving foreign rulers. It
confirmed that recognition by the Government of India is a prerequisite for a foreign ruler to initiate a
lawsuit.

2.2 Section 85: Suits Against Foreign Rulers

Section 85 provides immunity to foreign rulers from being sued in Indian courts without their consent. This section
enshrines the principle of sovereign immunity, which protects foreign states and their rulers from being subject to
the jurisdiction of domestic courts without their agreement.

Key Provisions:
 13

 Sovereign Immunity: Foreign rulers cannot be sued in Indian courts without the prior consent of the Central
Government. This reflects the principle of non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. United Arab Republic (1966)

The Supreme Court ruled that foreign states and their rulers enjoy immunity from being sued in Indian courts
unless they waive their immunity. This case reiterated the principle of sovereign immunity as part of
international law and its reflection in domestic law.

2. V.D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)

The court reiterated that foreign rulers and states cannot be dragged into litigation in Indian courts without
their consent. The principle of sovereign immunity was reaffirmed in this case as a cornerstone of
international diplomacy.

2.3 Section 86: Suits Against Foreign Rulers, Ambassadors, and Envoys

Section 86 governs the immunity from lawsuits enjoyed by foreign rulers, ambassadors, and envoys in India. This
section provides that they cannot be sued in Indian courts unless certain conditions are met.

Key Provisions:

 Immunity of Foreign Rulers and Ambassadors: A foreign ruler, ambassador, or envoy cannot be sued in
Indian courts except with the consent of the Central Government.

 Procedure: A request must be made to the Central Government for permission to file a suit against a foreign
ruler or ambassador. The government may grant or deny permission based on diplomatic and international
considerations.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Harbhajan Singh Dhalla v. Union of India (1986)

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 86 is a reflection of international comity and the principles of
sovereign equality and non-interference. The court emphasized that the consent of the Central Government
is essential before a foreign ruler or ambassador can be sued in India.

2. Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo (2011)

The Supreme Court held that state-owned corporations of foreign countries can be sued in Indian courts if
their commercial activities fall outside the scope of sovereign functions. The judgment clarified that
immunity under Section 86 does not extend to entities involved in purely commercial activities.

2.4 Section 87: Extent of Privilege

Section 87 clarifies the extent of privileges enjoyed by foreign rulers and their envoys. It further elaborates that the
immunities granted to foreign rulers, ambassadors, and envoys are based on principles of international law and
diplomatic immunity.

Key Provisions:

 Diplomatic Immunity: Foreign rulers, ambassadors, and envoys enjoy broad immunity from legal
proceedings in Indian courts.

 Central Government’s Role: The Central Government has the authority to grant or deny consent for initiating
suits against foreign rulers and envoys.
 14

Landmark Judgments:

1. S.S. Kalra v. Union of India (1991)

The Supreme Court emphasized that diplomatic immunity under Section 87 is consistent with the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. The court ruled that Indian courts must respect the international
legal obligations of the country in granting immunities to foreign officials.

2. Sri Ram v. Secretary to the Government of India (2005)

In this case, the court reinforced the importance of protecting diplomatic relations between countries by
upholding the immunity of foreign diplomats and envoys from legal proceedings in Indian courts.

2.5 Section 87A: Procedure in Suits Against Diplomatic Agents

Section 87A deals with the procedure for suits against diplomatic agents. This section ensures that diplomatic
agents, such as ambassadors, consuls, and envoys, are protected from litigation in India except under special
circumstances with the permission of the Central Government.

Key Provisions:

 Diplomatic Agents: Ambassadors, consuls, and other diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from being sued.

 Exceptions: Suits against diplomatic agents can be filed only with the permission of the Central Government
and in accordance with international law.

 Vienna Convention Compliance: The section is in line with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
1961, which grants broad immunity to diplomats from civil and criminal jurisdiction in the host country.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Veb Deutfracht Seereederei Rostock (D.S.R. Lines) v. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (1994)
The court held that diplomatic immunity must be respected, and any suit against a foreign diplomatic agent
requires explicit permission from the Central Government, keeping in view India’s international obligations.

2. Syed Mohd. Baqar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1995)

The Supreme Court reinforced the importance of Section 87A in protecting diplomatic agents from legal
proceedings, stressing that Indian courts must adhere to international law principles governing diplomatic
relations.

Suits by or Against Minors, Persons of Unsound Mind, and Suits Relating to Family Matters under the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides special procedural guidelines for conducting suits involving minors,
persons of unsound mind, and cases concerning family matters. These categories of litigation are subject to distinct
legal principles, reflecting the need for enhanced protection for vulnerable individuals and emphasizing non-
adversarial resolution in family disputes.

The provisions governing these matters are set out primarily in Order 32 (for minors and persons of unsound mind)
and Order 32A (for family-related suits). Additionally, several key judicial pronouncements have elaborated on the
application and interpretation of these provisions.

Below is an academic and legal exposition of these topics, incorporating all relevant rules and landmark judgments.

1. Suits by or Against Minors and Persons of Unsound Mind (Order 32)

 15

1.1 Overview of Order 32

Order 32 of the CPC provides the procedural framework for suits involving minors and persons of unsound mind. The
fundamental premise of these rules is that minors and those of unsound mind lack the legal capacity to prosecute or
defend a suit in their own name. Therefore, they are required to act through a next friend or a guardian ad litem,
respectively.

1.2 Key Rules under Order 32

Order 32, Rule 1: Minor to Sue by Next Friend

 A minor must be represented by a next friend in any suit he/she files. The next friend is typically a guardian
or a competent adult who has no adverse interest to the minor.

 Rule 1 mandates that no suit can be instituted by a minor without the appointment of a next friend, ensuring
that the minor’s legal incapacity is accounted for.

Order 32, Rule 2: Liability of Next Friend for Costs

 If a suit brought by a minor is unsuccessful, the next friend is liable for the costs of the suit unless the court
directs otherwise. This provision ensures that frivolous or vexatious suits are not filed on behalf of minors.

Order 32, Rule 3: Appointment of Guardian for a Minor Defendant

 In the event that a minor is made a defendant in a suit, the court is required to appoint a guardian ad litem
for the minor. This individual is responsible for protecting the interests of the minor defendant throughout
the litigation process.

 The rule ensures that the minor’s legal interests are adequately defended, preventing any disadvantage due
to the minor’s incapacity to act independently.

Order 32, Rule 3A: Duty of Court to Appoint Guardian in Cases Involving Persons of Unsound Mind

 Where a suit involves a person of unsound mind, the court must appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the
interests of such a person. This rule provides the same level of protection to persons of unsound mind as is
given to minors under Rule 3.

Order 32, Rule 4: Who May Act as Next Friend or Guardian ad Litem

 A person appointed as next friend or guardian ad litem must be a competent adult who has no conflicting
interest with the minor or person of unsound mind. The court has the discretion to replace the next friend or
guardian if it finds that they are not acting in the best interests of the minor or mentally incapacitated
person.

Order 32, Rule 5: Representation of Minor in Appeals

 If a minor is involved in an appeal, they must continue to be represented by a next friend or guardian ad
litem, unless they have attained the age of majority by the time the appeal is heard, in which case the minor
can prosecute or defend the appeal in his/her own name.

Order 32, Rule 6: Ceasing of Representation Upon Attaining Majority

 Upon attaining majority, a minor has the option to either continue with the same proceedings or repudiate
the actions taken by the next friend/guardian. The minor must inform the court of their decision, and any
subsequent steps in the suit shall be taken in the minor’s own name.

Order 32, Rule 7: No Agreement or Compromise Without Leave of Court

 16

 No agreement or compromise involving a minor or a person of unsound mind shall be entered into without
the express leave of the court. This provision serves to protect the interests of vulnerable litigants by
ensuring that any settlement or compromise is in their best interests and is not entered into frivolously or
fraudulently by the next friend or guardian.

Order 32, Rule 15: Application of Rules to Persons of Unsound Mind

 The rules laid down in Order 32 regarding minors are also applicable, mutatis mutandis, to persons of
unsound mind. This ensures that persons with mental incapacities receive the same level of legal protection
as minors.

1.3 Landmark Judgments on Suits by or Against Minors and Persons of Unsound Mind

1. Amritlal N. Shah v. Anna Hajarnavis (1960)

The Supreme Court in this case held that any compromise or settlement on behalf of a minor must be
approved by the court under Order 32, Rule 7. Without such approval, the compromise or settlement would
be considered voidable at the instance of the minor, ensuring that the interests of the minor are
safeguarded.

2. Sheikh Khurshid v. Sheikh Badruddin (1993)

This case affirmed that any suit filed on behalf of a minor without a next friend is non-maintainable. The
court held that the next friend is an essential component of any litigation involving a minor and ensures the
representation of the minor’s legal interests.

2. Suits Relating to Family Matters (Order 32A)

2.1 Overview of Order 32A

Order 32A of the CPC was introduced to deal with family matters in a manner distinct from ordinary civil suits. It
reflects the recognition by the legislature that family disputes require a different approach due to their sensitive
nature and the potential for emotional and social harm. The order encourages reconciliation, settlements, and a less
adversarial approach to dispute resolution in family matters.

The objective of Order 32A is to promote non-adversarial proceedings and protect the privacy and dignity of the
family unit. It also mandates that the court make efforts to bring about settlements or reconciliation between the
parties.

2.2 Key Rules under Order 32A

Order 32A, Rule 1: Application of the Order

 This rule clarifies the scope of Order 32A, which applies to suits or proceedings that involve matters
concerning the family, including but not limited to:

o Marriage, divorce, or judicial separation.

o Guardianship, custody, or maintenance of children.

o Any other disputes involving family relationships.

Order 32A, Rule 2: Duty of the Court to Make Efforts for Settlement
 17

 The court is mandated to make efforts to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties. This
includes encouraging the use of mediation or other forms of dispute resolution to settle family disputes. The
court is also empowered to adjourn proceedings to facilitate reconciliation.

 This rule highlights the emphasis on avoiding adversarial litigation and encourages harmony in familial
relationships, ensuring that the litigation process does not aggravate personal conflicts.

Order 32A, Rule 3: Assistance of Welfare Experts

 The court may, at any stage of the proceedings, seek the assistance of a welfare expert or a family counselor
in facilitating reconciliation or in determining what arrangement would best serve the interests of the family,
especially children.

 The use of experts ensures that the decision-making process is informed by professional opinions on family
welfare and the emotional well-being of family members.

Order 32A, Rule 4: In-Camera Proceedings

 To protect the privacy of the parties, particularly in sensitive family matters, the court may conduct in-
camera proceedings (private hearings). This ensures that sensitive issues relating to marriage, custody, or
other personal matters are not subjected to public scrutiny.

 The rule allows for the discretion of the court to balance transparency with privacy in family litigation.

2.3 Landmark Judgments on Family Matters under Order 32A

1. Bipin Chandra v. Prabhavati (1957)

The Supreme Court held that reconciliation efforts in matrimonial disputes are paramount and must be
exhausted before proceeding with divorce litigation. The court emphasized the responsibility of the judiciary
to promote reconciliation in family disputes, in line with the spirit of Order 32A.

2. Danamma v. Amar (2018)

The Supreme Court, in this landmark case, highlighted the importance of safeguarding the interests of
women and children in family disputes. The court stressed that family litigation should be handled with
sensitivity and emphasized the role of Order 32A, Rule 2, which mandates reconciliation and settlement
efforts in such cases.

2.4 Importance of Reconciliation and Privacy in Family Matters

Order 32A reflects a departure from the adversarial model of litigation in family disputes. By mandating
reconciliation efforts and promoting in-camera proceedings, the order seeks to minimize the emotional and social
impact of litigation on families. It prioritizes the welfare of children and the privacy of individuals involved in deeply
personal matters.

Suits by Indigent Persons under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides a special procedural framework for individuals who are unable to
afford court fees and other litigation expenses, enabling them to pursue their legal rights. Such individuals are
referred to as indigent persons (previously known as paupers) under the CPC. The provisions governing suits by
indigent persons are laid down in Order 33 of the CPC. This order enables persons who are financially incapable of
paying the requisite court fees to file suits without being burdened by these costs, ensuring that financial hardship
does not obstruct access to justice.
 18

In this legal exposition, we will examine the relevant rules of Order 33, related sections, and key judicial
interpretations that have shaped the understanding of suits by indigent persons.

1. Relevant Provisions of Order 33: Suits by Indigent Persons

1.1 Definition of Indigent Person (Order 33, Rule 1)

Order 33, Rule 1 provides the definition of an indigent person for the purposes of filing a suit. An indigent person is
one who:

 Is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fee prescribed for the suit he wishes to institute.

 The property exempted from attachment under Section 60 of the CPC is not considered in determining
whether a person is indigent.

 A person is indigent if he has no means or property worth the prescribed court fee or if the value of such
property does not exceed the amount necessary for subsistence.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction (2001)

The Supreme Court held that the inability to pay court fees is the central criterion for determining whether a
person qualifies as an indigent person under Order 33, Rule 1. The court clarified that in determining
indigence, the property that cannot be attached under Section 60 of the CPC (such as wearing apparel and
basic household necessities) should not be included in calculating the applicant's means.

2. P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka (1989)

The court reaffirmed that the determination of a person's indigence should be based on the resources
available at the time of filing the application. A person with property that is exempt from attachment (such as
tools of trade) can still be classified as indigent if they lack other financial resources.

1.2 Procedure for Filing a Suit as an Indigent Person (Order 33, Rule 2 and Rule 3)

 Order 33, Rule 2: This rule requires that an indigent person seeking to file a suit must submit an application
instead of a plaint. The application must include the particulars that would be included in a plaint, along with
a full statement of the applicant's income and property.

 Order 33, Rule 3: Upon receiving the application, the court conducts an inquiry to determine whether the
applicant qualifies as an indigent person. The inquiry may be conducted by the court itself or delegated to an
officer of the court. The court may also issue notices to the opposite party and the government pleader to
verify the applicant’s claim of indigence.

The inquiry ensures that only those genuinely in financial distress are permitted to proceed as indigent persons.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Sundaramma v. Ameer (1990)

The court held that while conducting the inquiry under Order 33, Rule 3, the court must examine all aspects
of the applicant’s financial condition. The process should not be rushed, and the court must ensure that only
those who truly cannot afford litigation expenses are allowed to proceed without paying court fees.

2. Janaki v. Chidambaram (1982)

In this case, the court ruled that any false or misleading statement made by the applicant regarding their
financial condition will result in the rejection of the application, and the applicant may also face penalties for
misrepresentation.
 19

1.3 Rejection of Application to Sue as an Indigent Person (Order 33, Rule 5)

Order 33, Rule 5 outlines the grounds upon which an application to sue as an indigent person can be rejected:

 If the application is not properly framed or lacks essential particulars.

 If the applicant is found to be in possession of sufficient means to pay court fees.

 If the applicant has entered into any agreements to finance the litigation through third parties.

 If the applicant has fraudulently disposed of any property within two months before the application to avoid
paying court fees.

Landmark Judgments:

1. K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy (1963)

The Supreme Court held that Order 33, Rule 5 is to be interpreted strictly to prevent misuse of the provision
by applicants who are not genuinely indigent. The court emphasized that rejection of an application should
be based on concrete evidence of the applicant's ability to pay court fees.

2. R. Chinnammal v. Muthammal (1995)

The court ruled that a mere suspicion that the applicant may possess hidden assets is not sufficient for
rejecting an application under Rule 5. The inquiry into the applicant’s means must be based on tangible
evidence.

1.4 Inquiry and Evidence (Order 33, Rule 6 and Rule 7)

 Order 33, Rule 6: After an inquiry into the application under Rule 3, the court may either grant or reject the
application based on the evidence presented. This inquiry is critical for determining the applicant’s financial
capacity.

 Order 33, Rule 7: If the court is satisfied that the applicant qualifies as an indigent person, it shall issue an
order permitting the applicant to sue without payment of court fees.

The inquiry stage is where the applicant’s financial background is scrutinized in detail, and the opposing party may
also be given an opportunity to contest the claim of indigence.

1.5 Withdrawal of Permission (Order 33, Rule 9)

Order 33, Rule 9 provides that the court can withdraw permission to sue as an indigent person if it is discovered at
any stage that the applicant:

 Is no longer indigent.

 Had obtained permission fraudulently.

 Has misrepresented or concealed facts regarding his financial situation.

This rule ensures that the privilege granted under Order 33 is not misused. Once permission is withdrawn, the
applicant will be required to pay the court fees retrospectively.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Gopala Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif (1968)

The court held that if an indigent person is found to have misrepresented their financial condition, the court
 20

has the authority under Order 33, Rule 9 to withdraw the permission to sue as an indigent person. The
applicant will then be required to pay court fees from the date of the institution of the suit.

2. Ganesha Dhond Devji v. Bala Giri Devji (1984)

The Supreme Court clarified that permission can be withdrawn at any stage of the proceedings if it is
discovered that the person was never truly indigent or has acquired sufficient means to pay court fees during
the pendency of the suit.

1.6 Recovery of Court Fees (Order 33, Rule 10)

Order 33, Rule 10 provides that if a suit instituted by an indigent person is successful, the court will calculate the
court fees that would have been payable if the plaintiff had not been indigent. The decree in the plaintiff’s favor will
include an order for the recovery of court fees from the defendant or from any property obtained through the
decree.

This ensures that, although the indigent person is exempt from paying court fees upfront, the fees are eventually
recovered if the suit results in a favorable judgment for the plaintiff.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa (1963)

The Supreme Court ruled that the purpose of Order 33, Rule 10 is to balance the interests of the state and
the litigant by ensuring that court fees are ultimately paid if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit. The court fees
will be recovered from the losing party or from the plaintiff’s share of any awarded property.

2. Gurumurthy v. State of Karnataka (1991)

The court held that even when an indigent person wins the case, the court has the power to enforce the
payment of court fees from the proceeds of the judgment, thereby ensuring that the state’s revenue is not
unduly compromised.

Suits by or Against Corporations under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides specific provisions governing suits by or against corporations through
Order 29. Corporations, being artificial legal persons, have a separate legal identity from their members and
shareholders, allowing them to sue or be sued in their own name. However, as artificial entities, they require specific
procedural rules to manage how they engage in litigation, ensuring clarity in representation, service of summons, and
other court-related processes.

This detailed exposition will cover all the relevant rules in Order 29, alongside applicable sections and landmark
judgments that clarify the legal procedures for suits involving corporations.

1. Legal Framework: Order 29 and its Key Rules

Order 29 governs procedural rules for suits filed by or against corporations. It ensures that these artificial entities
can engage in litigation efficiently and be held accountable while ensuring that there is proper representation for the
corporation throughout the litigation process.

Order 29, Rule 1: Corporations May Sue or Be Sued in Their Own Name
 21

 Rule 1 of Order 29 provides that a corporation may sue or be sued in its corporate name, which reflects the
principle of the separate legal personality of corporations. This means the corporation is treated as a distinct
entity, separate from its shareholders, directors, or members.

Key Points:

 A corporation can file suits as a plaintiff or be sued as a defendant under its corporate name.

 Individual officers, members, or directors are not named parties in the suit unless specific reasons warrant
their involvement (e.g., in cases involving personal liability or fraud).

Landmark Judgments:

1. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1964)

The Supreme Court held that a corporation, being a separate legal entity, must sue or be sued in its own
name and not in the names of its directors or officers. This judgment reinforced the principle that
corporations, as distinct legal personalities, have an independent capacity to engage in litigation.

2. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Sriyanesh Knitters (1999)

The court reiterated that corporations can sue or be sued in their corporate name. The decision confirmed
that statutory bodies such as the Board of Trustees, acting in their corporate capacity, can initiate legal
proceedings without involving individual members.

Order 29, Rule 2: Service of Summons on Corporations

 Rule 2 governs the procedure for service of summons on a corporation. Summons can be served on:

o The secretary, or

o A director, or

o A principal officer of the corporation, or

o By leaving the summons at the registered office of the corporation.

This rule is crucial because it ensures that corporations, unlike natural persons, are served summonses in a structured
and legally recognized manner, ensuring the corporation is duly notified about any legal proceedings.

Key Points:

 Summons can be validly served on any officer designated by the corporation to receive legal documents.

 The process is flexible, allowing for service at the corporation’s registered office to ensure the corporation is
properly notified.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Keshvanand (1998)

The court held that the proper service of summons on a corporation must be in compliance with Order 29,
Rule 2, and failure to adhere to this procedure renders the service invalid. The court stressed the importance
of notifying corporations through their principal officers or registered office.

2. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017)

The court confirmed that service of summons on a corporation must be made by following the rules of Order
29, Rule 2. The judgment highlighted the importance of serving legal notices to corporate entities through
authorized channels to ensure procedural compliance.
 22

Order 29, Rule 3: Power to Sign Pleadings on Behalf of the Corporation

 Rule 3 specifies who is authorized to sign and verify pleadings on behalf of a corporation. The rule provides
that:

o The secretary,

o Any director, or

o Principal officer of the corporation who has knowledge of the matters in dispute can sign and verify
pleadings (such as the plaint, written statement, or affidavits).

This rule ensures that only individuals who are intimately involved in the corporation's operations and who possess
knowledge of the case facts are authorized to represent the corporation in legal proceedings.

Key Points:

 The corporation itself is an artificial entity, so it must act through its authorized representatives.

 The person signing the pleadings must be someone who has sufficient knowledge of the case's facts.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Haro Chand Sachdeva (2003)

The Supreme Court held that the authorized officers mentioned in Order 29, Rule 3 could sign and verify
pleadings on behalf of the corporation. The absence of the director’s signature does not invalidate the
pleadings if an authorized officer has signed them.

2. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. CTO (1963)

The court affirmed that the persons authorized to sign pleadings on behalf of a corporation are limited to
those listed under Order 29, Rule 3. This provision ensures that only those with the appropriate knowledge
and authority are entrusted with legal representation in court.

Order 29, Rule 4: Decree Against a Corporation

 Rule 4 provides that a decree can be executed against the property of a corporation, but not against its
individual directors or members unless they are held personally liable by the court. This rule safeguards the
principle of limited liability, which is central to corporate law, by ensuring that personal assets of directors or
members cannot be attached unless they are specifically implicated.

Key Points:

 A decree obtained against a corporation can be executed against the corporation’s assets.

 Individual members or directors cannot be held liable unless personal liability is established.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (1996)

In this case, the court pierced the corporate veil, allowing personal liability to be established against the directors
who had engaged in fraudulent activities. While Order 29, Rule 4 protects the corporation’s directors from
personal liability, this judgment demonstrates that the courts may look beyond the corporate veil when fraud or
misconduct is involved.

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. (1986)

The Supreme Court upheld the principle of limited liability under Order 29, Rule 4, stating that directors and
shareholders are not personally liable for the debts or obligations of the corporation unless there is a legal basis
to hold them personally accountable.
 23

Order 29, Rule 5: Suit in the Name of a Corporation under Judicial Management

 Rule 5 provides that a suit may be filed or defended in the name of a corporation even if it is under judicial
management or liquidation. The proceedings must be conducted by the official liquidator or judicial manager
on behalf of the corporation.

This rule ensures that the corporation's legal rights and obligations are not suspended merely because it is under
judicial management or in liquidation, and legal proceedings can still be initiated or defended to protect the
corporation's interests.

Key Points:

 A corporation under judicial management or liquidation retains its legal personality.

 The liquidator or judicial manager assumes responsibility for handling legal matters on behalf of the
corporation.

Landmark Judgments:

1. M.K. Ranganathan v. Government of Madras (1955)

The court held that legal proceedings against a corporation under liquidation could only be pursued with the
permission of the liquidation court. This ruling highlighted the supervisory role of the liquidation court in
ensuring that the corporation’s assets are preserved and that litigation is managed prudently.

2. National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan (1983)

The court emphasized that even during winding-up proceedings, the interests of the company’s creditors,
workers, and other stakeholders must be protected, and litigation involving the corporation must continue under
the supervision of the court-appointed liquidator.

2. Applicability of Other Provisions to Corporations

In addition to the specific rules under Order 29, other sections of the CPC, including provisions regarding the
continuation of suits after changes in the corporate structure or the substitution of parties, apply to corporations.

3. Corporate Veil and Piercing the Corporate Veil

Although corporations are recognized as separate legal entities, courts can pierce the corporate veil when necessary,
particularly in cases of fraud, malfeasance, or misuse of the corporate form. This doctrine allows the court to
disregard the corporate personality and hold the individuals behind the corporation personally liable.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (1996)

The court pierced the corporate veil and held the directors personally liable due to fraudulent activities. The
judgment highlighted that when the corporate form is used for dishonest purposes, the individuals behind the
corporation cannot escape liability.

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. (1986)

The court reiterated that the corporate veil can be pierced in exceptional cases to prevent injustice or fraud,
thereby holding individuals behind the corporation accountable for its actions when they misuse the corporate
structure.
 24

Interpleader Suits under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides a mechanism known as an interpleader suit through Section 88 and
Order 35. An interpleader suit is a special type of suit where the plaintiff (often a neutral stakeholder) is placed in a
situation where multiple parties are making conflicting claims against the same subject matter, typically property or
money. The plaintiff does not claim any interest in the subject matter except for their charges or costs and seeks the
court's intervention to determine which of the defendants has the rightful claim.

Interpleader suits prevent the stakeholder from facing multiple liabilities and allow the court to resolve disputes
between the competing claimants.

1. Section 88: Interpleader Suits

Section 88 of the CPC lays down the statutory foundation for interpleader suits. It allows a person to file such a suit
when they are unsure as to which of several claimants is legally entitled to a particular property or money that they
hold.

Key Provisions:

 Section 88 provides that when two or more persons make conflicting claims against a person who has no
personal interest in the subject matter of the dispute, such a person may institute an interpleader suit.

 The plaintiff in an interpleader suit is usually a neutral third party who wants the court to decide to whom
the property or money should be delivered, so that the plaintiff may avoid facing double or multiple
liabilities.

Essential Conditions for an Interpleader Suit under Section 88:

1. Two or more defendants must make conflicting claims to the same property or money.

2. The plaintiff must have no interest in the subject matter except for the costs of filing the suit.

3. The plaintiff must be ready to deliver the property or money to the rightful claimant as determined by the
court.

4. There must be no collusion between the plaintiff and any of the claimants.

2. Order 35: Procedural Rules for Interpleader Suits

Order 35 of the CPC provides detailed procedural rules for filing and conducting an interpleader suit. It prescribes the
form of pleadings, the obligations of the plaintiff, and the manner in which the court deals with competing claims.

Order 35, Rule 1: Plaintiff in an Interpleader Suit

 Rule 1 describes who can file an interpleader suit. The person must be someone who holds property or
money but does not claim any interest in it. The plaintiff must face conflicting claims from two or more
parties regarding the same property or money.

 The rule excludes any person who claims any right to the subject matter of the dispute from filing an
interpleader suit, as they are not neutral.

Key Points:

 The plaintiff cannot claim ownership or any other interest in the disputed property, except for
reimbursement of legal costs.
 25

 The person filing the interpleader suit acts merely as a stakeholder, seeking to avoid liability by asking the
court to determine which of the claimants is entitled to the property.

Order 35, Rule 2: Procedure for Filing the Interpleader Suit

 Rule 2 requires the plaintiff to state the names of all claimants and to disclose whether they have already
filed any suit or claim concerning the disputed property.

 The plaintiff is required to deposit the property or money in dispute into the court (if applicable) or express
willingness to hand over the property once the rightful owner is determined.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Sivagnanam Pillai v. Thangavelu Pillai (1954)

The court emphasized that an interpleader suit must involve a situation where the plaintiff is in doubt as to
who has the rightful claim over the disputed property. The court clarified that the purpose of an interpleader
suit is to protect a neutral party from being caught in the middle of conflicting claims.

2. Ratlam Straw Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1976)

The Supreme Court held that the primary objective of an interpleader suit is to relieve a person facing
conflicting claims from the burden of defending multiple actions. The plaintiff should not be a party to the
dispute and must remain neutral throughout the proceedings.

Order 35, Rule 3: Discharge of Plaintiff

 Rule 3 provides that once the plaintiff deposits the subject matter of the dispute with the court, or expresses
their willingness to do so, the court may discharge the plaintiff from the suit, relieving them of any further
liability.

 The plaintiff can then exit the litigation, leaving the defendants (the claimants) to litigate among themselves.

Key Points:

 Once discharged, the plaintiff no longer has any involvement in the dispute, except possibly as a witness if
required.

 This rule is designed to protect the neutral stakeholder from further litigation, ensuring they are not
burdened with the costs or risks associated with the conflicting claims.

Landmark Judgments:

1. Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal (1962)

The court held that once the plaintiff deposits the property or money with the court, they can be discharged
from further liability. The judgment stressed that the plaintiff in an interpleader suit must remain neutral and
should be discharged as soon as the court takes possession of the disputed property.

2. Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das (1961)

The court reaffirmed the principle that a neutral party, after depositing the disputed property or money with
the court, can be discharged from the proceedings under Order 35, Rule 3, thus avoiding potential liability or
further litigation.

Order 35, Rule 4: Procedure After Discharge of Plaintiff

 26

 Rule 4 provides that after the plaintiff is discharged, the court proceeds to hear and determine the rights of
the claimants (defendants) to the disputed property or money.

 The defendants must file their claims and substantiate them with evidence, and the court will adjudicate
which of the claimants has the superior legal right.

Key Points:

 Once the plaintiff is discharged, the focus shifts to resolving the claims of the defendants.

 The court will decide the case based on the merits of each defendant's claim, and the party declared as the
rightful owner will receive the property or money.

Order 35, Rule 5: Costs and Compensation

 Rule 5 grants the court the power to award costs to the plaintiff for having filed the interpleader suit. The
costs incurred by the plaintiff are usually borne by the unsuccessful claimants.

 The plaintiff may also be entitled to claim compensation for any expenses or charges related to the custody
of the disputed property.

Key Points:

 The court has the discretion to award costs to the plaintiff as part of the final decree, compensating them for
the burden of filing the interpleader suit.

 The party ultimately found to have no valid claim over the property or money may be required to bear the
costs of the plaintiff’s suit.

3. Essential Conditions for an Interpleader Suit

For a valid interpleader suit, the following essential conditions must be met:

1. Conflicting Claims: Two or more defendants must assert conflicting claims over the same property or money,
leading to uncertainty as to the rightful claimant.

2. Neutral Stakeholder: The plaintiff must not have any interest in the disputed property or money other than
seeking reimbursement for their costs.

3. No Collusion: There must be no collusion between the plaintiff and any of the defendants; the plaintiff’s role
is strictly neutral.

4. Situations Where Interpleader Suits Cannot Be Filed

Interpleader suits are not maintainable in the following situations:

1. Where the plaintiff claims any interest in the property or money in dispute (except for costs or charges).

2. Where there is collusion between the plaintiff and any of the defendants.

3. Where the plaintiff is facing a liability independent of the defendants' claims, such as in the case of a
trustee or a bailee who has committed a breach of trust or bailment.

5. Landmark Judgments on Interpleader Suits

 27

1. Ganesh v. Kumar Swamy (1970)

The court clarified that an interpleader suit is permissible only where the plaintiff is genuinely neutral and
holds no interest in the subject matter of the dispute. Any attempt by the plaintiff to assert a claim over the
disputed property disqualifies them from filing an interpleader suit.

2. Bai Nirmala v. Jacob Manavalan (1979)

The court reiterated that an interpleader suit protects stakeholders from multiple liabilities and the risk of
being held liable to more than one claimant. The judgment emphasized that the purpose of interpleader
suits is to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of suits and to provide a just resolution of conflicting claims.

Summary Procedure and Summary Judgment under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

1. Summary Procedure under Order 37 of CPC

Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides a special fast-track procedure for certain types of suits. The
main purpose of Order 37 is to quickly resolve cases where the defendant has no substantial defense. These cases
are usually based on liquidated demands (fixed amounts of money) or written contracts, where the facts are
straightforward, and a full trial may not be necessary.

1.1 Types of Suits Allowed Under Order 37 (Rule 1)

Order 37 applies only to specific kinds of suits:

 Suits based on bills of exchange, hundis, or promissory notes.

 Suits where the plaintiff seeks to recover a fixed amount of money based on a written contract or
guarantee.

The idea is to speed up the resolution of these cases because the plaintiff’s claim is clear, and there is little room for
the defendant to raise a valid defense.

1.2 How to Start a Summary Suit (Rule 2)

 The plaintiff must file a plaint (a legal document starting the lawsuit), specifically stating that the suit is under
Order 37.

 The court will issue a summons (a formal notice to the defendant), which tells the defendant that they have
10 days to respond. The defendant must enter an appearance (notify the court that they intend to contest
the suit).

 If the defendant does not enter an appearance within the 10 days, the plaintiff can ask the court to pass a
judgment in their favor without any further notice to the defendant.

1.3 Leave to Defend (Rule 3)

If the defendant enters an appearance, they must also apply for leave to defend (permission to defend the suit). This
application must be filed within 10 days of receiving the summons and should include an affidavit explaining the
defense.

 The court can:

o Grant unconditional leave to defend if the defense raises a substantial and genuine issue that needs
to be investigated.

o Grant conditional leave if the defense is weak but still worth considering. The court may ask the
defendant to deposit money or provide security before being allowed to defend the case.
 28

o Reject leave to defend if the defense appears frivolous or without merit. In such cases, the court
will pass a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Landmark Judgments:

 M/s Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation (1977): This case set the rules for
when leave to defend should be granted. If the defense is genuine and substantial, the court should grant
unconditional leave. If the defense is weak but not completely frivolous, conditional leave may be granted.

 Sunil Enterprises & Anr. v. SBI Commercial & International Bank Ltd. (1998): The Supreme Court held that
leave to defend should only be given if the defendant raises issues that are substantial and require a full trial.
If the defense is weak or merely an attempt to delay the case, the court may impose conditions like
depositing money.

1.4 Ex-parte Decrees and Setting Them Aside (Rule 4)

 If the defendant does not appear or apply for leave to defend, the court can pass an ex-parte decree (a
judgment without the defendant’s involvement).

 The defendant can later apply to set aside this ex-parte decree by showing the court that they had a valid
reason for not defending the case in time. The court has the discretion to decide whether to reopen the case.

Landmark Judgment:

 Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh (2000): The court held that if the defendant can show that they had a valid
reason for not appearing in court, the ex-parte decree can be set aside.

2. Summary Judgment under Order 13A of CPC

Order 13A, introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, allows for summary judgments in any type of civil suit
where the court believes that one party has no real chance of success. This provision is broader than Order 37 and
can be used in a wider range of cases, not just those involving fixed amounts or written contracts.

2.1 Application for Summary Judgment (Rule 1)

 Either the plaintiff or the defendant can apply for a summary judgment.

 The application for a summary judgment can be made after the summons has been served but before the
issues are framed (before the court decides what the disputed points in the case are).

2.2 When Can the Court Grant a Summary Judgment? (Rule 2)

The court may grant a summary judgment if it is satisfied that:

1. The defendant has no real chance of successfully defending the claim.

2. The plaintiff has no real chance of winning the suit.

3. There is no reason to go through a full trial because the facts are clear and undisputed.

2.3 Procedure for Summary Judgment (Rules 3 and 4)

 The party applying for summary judgment must file an affidavit explaining why they believe the other party
has no real prospect of success.

 The other party can respond with their own affidavit, showing why the case involves triable issues that
require a full trial.
 29

 If the court finds that there are no substantial issues, it can pass a summary judgment without going through
the entire trial process.

Landmark Judgments:

 Brightside Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bank of India (2018): The court emphasized that Order 13A is
designed to resolve clear-cut cases quickly and efficiently, without requiring a full trial.

 ITC Limited v. Continental Coffee Ltd. (2019): The court granted a summary judgment where it was evident
that the defendant had no substantial defense. The court held that summary judgments help avoid
unnecessary trials in cases where there is no genuine dispute.

Comparison Between Order 37 and Order 13A

Aspect Order 37 (Summary Procedure) Order 13A (Summary Judgment)

Suits based on bills of exchange, promissory notes, Applicable to any suit where there is no real
Applicable to
written contracts chance of success

Leave to Defendant must apply for leave to defend within 10 No leave to defend; summary judgment can be
Defend days applied for directly

Timing At the filing stage After summons but before framing of issues

Dispose of suits without trial where there is no

Purpose Avoid frivolous defenses in straightforward cases
genuine dispute

Arrest and Attachment Before Judgment (Order 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

Order 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides preventive measures that a plaintiff can request to
ensure that a defendant does not dispose of property or abscond with the intention to frustrate the outcome of a
case. This order governs both the arrest of the defendant before judgment and the attachment of property to secure
the potential decree in favor of the plaintiff.

Let’s examine the provisions and rules in detail along with significant case laws for each concept.

I. Arrest Before Judgment (Order 38, Rules 1-4)

Rule 1: Conditions for Arrest Before Judgment

A defendant may be arrested before judgment if the court is satisfied that:

 The defendant is about to abscond or leave the jurisdiction of the court.

 The defendant is about to dispose of their property with the intent to delay or obstruct the execution of any
decree that may be passed against them.

This rule allows the plaintiff to prevent the defendant from absconding or disposing of property by seeking their
arrest. The plaintiff must provide evidence or affidavit demonstrating the defendant's intent to defeat the court’s
decision.

Rule 2: Security for Appearance

 30

If the court deems the plaintiff’s fears legitimate, it may issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest and require them
to furnish security for their appearance in court. If the defendant fails to furnish such security, they may be detained
in civil prison until further orders or until security is provided.

Rule 3: Procedure for Release

If the defendant furnishes the required security, they are released from arrest. If a surety is provided on behalf of the
defendant, the surety will be liable for the defendant’s appearance. In case the surety wishes to discharge
themselves from this liability, they may apply to the court for the defendant’s re-arrest or replacement security.

Rule 4: Consequence of Failure to Furnish Security

If the defendant fails to furnish the required security, the court can order their detention in civil prison until the final
decision in the suit or until they provide the necessary security.

Landmark Judgments on Arrest Before Judgment

1. Mechalec Engineers v. Basic Equipment Corporation (AIR 1977 SC 577):

o Facts: In this case, the defendant attempted to leave the country after incurring liabilities. The
plaintiff sought the arrest of the defendant before judgment to ensure that the liabilities would be
met.

o Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court highlighted that arrest before judgment is an extraordinary
remedy, to be exercised only in cases where the defendant’s intention to abscond or frustrate the
decree is clearly proven.

o Ratio: The court stated that the remedy under Order 38 Rule 1 must be used cautiously and only in
cases where there is concrete evidence of a defendant’s malafide intent to defeat justice by
absconding.

2. Rajendra Singh v. Ramdhar Singh (AIR 1973 Pat 233):

o Facts: The plaintiff applied for arrest before judgment, alleging that the defendant was trying to
abscond to avoid a possible decree. However, the defendant contended that no concrete evidence of
absconding was provided.

o Court's Ruling: The Patna High Court held that the power to arrest before judgment is discretionary
and should not be used unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a defendant’s intention to
abscond. The court denied the plaintiff’s application.

o Ratio: The court emphasized that mere apprehensions or allegations are insufficient to justify an
order of arrest before judgment. There must be substantive proof of the defendant’s intent to
abscond.

II. Attachment Before Judgment (Order 38, Rules 5-13)

Rule 5: Conditions for Attachment Before Judgment

The court may order attachment of the defendant’s property at any stage of the suit if it is satisfied that:

 The defendant is about to dispose of the whole or part of their property, or

 The defendant is about to remove their property from the jurisdiction of the court with the intent to obstruct
or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed.
 31

The plaintiff must prove by affidavit or other evidence that there is a real risk of the defendant attempting to render
the judgment ineffective by removing or disposing of their property.

Rule 6: Consequence of Failure to Furnish Security

If the defendant does not show cause or fails to furnish the required security, the court can order the attachment of
the defendant’s property to secure the claim in the suit.

Rule 7: Procedure for Attachment

The attachment must follow the same procedures applicable to attachment for the execution of decrees. The court
may attach movable or immovable property as per the provisions of the CPC.

Rule 8: Adjudication of Claims to Attached Property

If any third party claims the right to the attached property, the court must adjudicate these claims in the same
manner as claims to property attached in the execution of a decree.

Rule 9: Withdrawal of Attachment

If the defendant furnishes the required security, or if the suit is dismissed, the court will withdraw the attachment.

Rule 10: Effect of Attachment on Rights of Third Parties

Attachment before judgment does not affect the rights of third parties acquired before the attachment. It also does
not prevent other decree-holders from applying for the sale of the attached property in the execution of other
decrees.

Rule 11: Continuation of Attachment After Judgment

If property has already been attached before judgment, the plaintiff does not need to apply for re-attachment when
executing the decree. The attached property remains under attachment until the satisfaction of the decree.

Rule 12: Agricultural Produce Not Attachable

The court cannot order the attachment of agricultural produce in the possession of an agriculturist before judgment.

Landmark Judgments on Attachment Before Judgment

1. Raman Tech & Process Engineering Co. v. Solanki Traders (AIR 2008 SC 1284):

o Facts: The plaintiff sought attachment of the defendant's property before judgment, fearing that the
defendant would alienate the property and frustrate the decree.

o Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the power to order attachment before judgment is a
drastic measure and should only be used when there is a clear and substantial threat of the
defendant disposing of the property to defeat a decree. The court clarified that the attachment is
meant to safeguard the plaintiff's interest and not to coerce the defendant.

o Ratio: The judgment emphasized that attachment before judgment is not a tool for undue
harassment but a protective measure to ensure that the decree, if passed, will not be rendered
ineffective.

2. Prem Raj Mundra v. Md. Maneck Gazi (AIR 1951 Cal 156):

o Facts: In this case, the plaintiff applied for attachment before judgment, claiming that the defendant
was likely to dispose of their property to defeat any potential decree. The defendant objected,
stating that no specific proof was presented to show the intention to dispose of the property.
 32

o Court's Ruling: The Calcutta High Court held that attachment before judgment is an extraordinary
remedy, and the court must exercise caution in granting it. The court emphasized that the plaintiff
must present specific evidence to prove the defendant’s intention to dispose of the property.

o Ratio: The court reiterated that mere suspicion or apprehension is insufficient. The plaintiff must
demonstrate a clear intention by the defendant to frustrate the decree.

Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders (Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 provides for the issuance of temporary injunctions and other
interlocutory orders by courts to prevent irreparable harm to parties during the pendency of a suit. The purpose of a
temporary injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the suit until the final decision. Interlocutory orders deal
with preserving the rights and property at issue before the final resolution of a case.

I. Temporary Injunctions (Rules 1-5 of Order 39)

Rule 1: Circumstances for Granting a Temporary Injunction

Temporary injunctions can be granted under the following circumstances:

 Danger to Property: If it is proved that any property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged,
alienated, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, the court may grant an injunction.

 Fraudulent Intent: If the defendant intends to dispose of their property with the intent to defraud creditors.

 Dispossession or Harm to the Plaintiff: If the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or cause injury
in relation to the disputed property.

The court can issue a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from engaging in such activities until the
disposal of the suit or until further orders.

Rule 2: Injunction to Prevent Repetition of Breach

In suits seeking to restrain the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other types of injury, the plaintiff
can apply for a temporary injunction either before or after the commencement of the suit. This injunction may
prevent not only the specific breach complained of but also similar injuries related to the same contract or property.

Rule 2A: Consequences of Breach of an Injunction

If a party disobeys a temporary injunction or an interlocutory order, the court may:

1. Order the attachment of the disobeying party's property.

2. Detain the party in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless the court orders their release.

The attachment of property will not remain in force for more than one year. If the breach continues after this period,
the property can be sold, and the proceeds may be used to compensate the injured party.

Rule 3: Notice to the Opposite Party

Before granting a temporary injunction, the court is required to notify the opposite party. However, in cases where a
delay in issuing the injunction would defeat the purpose (e.g., the property may be disposed of), the court can grant
an ex-parte injunction (without prior notice). In such cases, the court must record its reasons for bypassing notice.

Rule 3A: Timely Disposal of Injunction Applications

 33

The court must make every effort to dispose of the application for a temporary injunction within 30 days from the
date it was filed. If the court is unable to do so, it must record the reasons for the delay.

Rule 4: Modification or Discharge of Injunctions

If any party is dissatisfied with the order of a temporary injunction, they can apply to have it discharged, varied, or
set aside. If the court finds that the injunction was granted based on a false or misleading statement, or if the
circumstances have changed, the court may vacate or modify the injunction.

Rule 5: Injunction Binding on Officers of Corporations

If an injunction is issued against a corporation, it is not only binding on the corporation but also on its officers and
members whose actions it seeks to restrain.

II. Interlocutory Orders (Rules 6-10 of Order 39)

Interlocutory orders under Order 39 allow the court to take necessary actions to maintain the status quo and prevent
irreparable harm during the pendency of a suit.

Rule 6: Interim Sale

The court may order the interim sale of any movable property that is the subject matter of the suit or attached
before judgment. This is typically ordered when the property is subject to speedy and natural decay or when its
immediate sale is otherwise justified.

Rule 7: Detention, Preservation, and Inspection

The court can order the detention, preservation, or inspection of any property that is the subject matter of the suit.
This may also include authorizing any person to enter into land or buildings under the possession of any party to the
suit for the purposes of gathering evidence.

Rule 8: Application of Orders After Notice

Applications for interim orders under Rules 6 and 7 must be made after giving notice to the opposite party, unless the
court believes that issuing such notice would defeat the purpose of the order.

Landmark Judgments on Temporary Injunctions

1. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC 276):

o Facts: The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from alienating the
disputed property during the pendency of the suit.

o Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court emphasized that a temporary injunction should not be granted
simply because a prima facie case exists. The court must also consider the balance of convenience
and the risk of irreparable injury.

o Ratio: This judgment established the essential conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction:
prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.

2. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. (AIR 1995 SC 2372):

o Facts: The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant to prevent them from violating a non-
compete agreement during the pendency of the suit.

o Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court reiterated that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to
maintain the status quo until the final determination of the rights of the parties. The court held that
 34

injunctions are discretionary and should only be granted when necessary to prevent irreparable
harm.

o Ratio: This case reinforced that the purpose of temporary injunctions is to prevent irreparable harm
and that they should only be granted when maintaining the status quo is crucial to justice.

Appointment of Receivers (Order 40, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 deals with the appointment of receivers by courts. A receiver is
an impartial third party appointed by the court to manage and preserve the property in dispute. The court appoints a
receiver to protect the interests of the parties and ensure that the subject matter of the suit is preserved and not
wasted or damaged during litigation.

I. Appointment of Receivers (Rule 1, Order 40)

Rule 1(1): When a Receiver Can Be Appointed

The court may appoint a receiver of any property before or after a decree, where it appears to the court to be just
and convenient. The court must find that the appointment is necessary to protect the property or its profits and to
ensure justice in the case. The powers of the receiver are specified by the court and can include:

 Managing and protecting the property.

 Collecting rents and profits.

 Defending and initiating suits related to the property.

 Disposing of property (as authorized by the court).

The appointment is discretionary and made in cases where the court believes that it would be impractical or unsafe
for either party to retain control over the property.

Key Considerations for Appointing a Receiver:

1. Danger to the Property: If the property is at risk of being wasted, damaged, or improperly managed.

2. Protection of Rights: When the rights of the parties cannot be adequately protected without intervention.

3. Need for Impartial Management: In cases involving conflicts where neither party should be trusted to
manage the property fairly.

Rule 1(2): Limitation on Receiver’s Powers

The court cannot remove any person from possession of the property unless one of the parties to the suit has the
present right to do so. This means that the appointment of a receiver must respect the existing lawful possession of
property unless the court determines that removal is necessary for justice.

II. Remuneration of Receivers (Rule 2)

The court can fix the remuneration for the receiver’s services by general or special orders. The compensation is
usually a percentage of the income or profits generated from the property managed by the receiver. The court is also
responsible for determining the reasonableness of the fees charged by the receiver.

III. Duties of a Receiver (Rule 3)

 35

Upon appointment, the receiver has several key responsibilities to ensure proper management of the property:

 Security: The receiver must furnish security if required by the court, guaranteeing the faithful performance
of their duties.

 Accounts: The receiver must submit regular accounts to the court detailing the income and expenses related
to the property.

 Payment: The receiver must pay the court or parties as directed based on the profits or income generated
from the property.

 Liability: If the receiver causes any loss to the property due to willful default or gross negligence, they are
personally liable for such losses.

IV. Enforcement of Receiver’s Duties (Rule 4)

If a receiver fails to perform their duties, the court can take enforcement actions, such as:

 Attachment of the Receiver's Property: The court may order the attachment and sale of the receiver’s
property to cover any losses caused by their default or negligence.

 Compensation: The court may use the proceeds from the sale to compensate for any losses or amounts due.

V. Appointment of Collector as Receiver (Rule 5)

In cases involving land paying revenue to the government or land where revenue has been assigned or redeemed,
the court may appoint a Collector as the receiver. This is typically done when the court believes that the interests of
the parties will be better served by the Collector's management, subject to the Collector’s consent.

Landmark Judgments on Appointment of Receivers

1. T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. C. Thangavelu Chetty (AIR 1955 Mad 430):

o Facts: The case involved a dispute over the management of joint family property, with both parties
seeking to oust the other from possession. The court appointed a receiver to manage the property
impartially.

o Court's Ruling: The Madras High Court laid down important principles for the appointment of a
receiver. It emphasized that a receiver should only be appointed in exceptional circumstances where
it is clear that the property is in danger or mismanagement is evident.

o Ratio: This case established that the court must exercise its discretion judiciously, balancing the
necessity for the appointment with the potential hardship it may cause to the parties involved.

2. Kanhaiyalal v. Dr. D. R. Banaji (AIR 1958 SC 725):

o Facts: The Supreme Court dealt with a case where the trial court had appointed a receiver for
disputed immovable property during the pendency of the suit.

o Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court held that a receiver can only be appointed in cases where there is
clear evidence of imminent danger to the property or where parties are likely to suffer substantial
harm if a receiver is not appointed.
 36

o Ratio: The court emphasized that the appointment of a receiver is not a right of any party, but a
discretionary power to be exercised with caution and only in situations where the interests of justice
demand it.

Appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 lays down a comprehensive framework for appeals, allowing aggrieved
parties to challenge decrees and orders passed by civil courts. These provisions ensure that parties have a right to
seek review and correction of judicial decisions through higher courts, while also setting limits on when and how
appeals may be made.

Here, we will systematically explore Sections 96 to 109 and the applicable rules under Orders 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45
of the CPC.

I. Appeals from Original Decrees (Sections 96 to 99A, Order 41)

Section 96: Appeal from Original Decrees

 General Right to Appeal: Section 96 allows any party aggrieved by a decree passed by a court exercising
original jurisdiction to appeal to a higher court.

o Ex Parte Decree: An appeal can be made against a decree passed ex parte, i.e., without the
appearance of the defendant.

o No Appeal on Consent Decrees: No appeal lies from a decree passed with the consent of the parties.

o Small Causes Court: In suits under the jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts, an appeal is allowed only
on questions of law if the value exceeds ₹10,000.

Section 97: Appeal from Final Decrees Where No Appeal from Preliminary Decree

 Preclusion of Appeal: If no appeal is filed against a preliminary decree, a party cannot appeal on the same
matters after the final decree is passed. This section ensures that parties raise their concerns at the
appropriate stage.

Section 98: Decision in Cases Where Appeal is Heard by Multiple Judges

 Majority Opinion: If an appeal is heard by two or more judges and there is a disagreement, the decision is
based on the majority opinion. If the bench is equally divided, the matter is referred to one or more
additional judges.

Section 99: No Reversal on Grounds of Form or Procedural Irregularities

 A decree will not be reversed or varied merely because of a procedural error or irregularity unless such an
error has affected the merits of the case or the court’s jurisdiction.

Section 99A: Appeal Relating to Orders Under Section 47

 Errors in Execution Proceedings: This section addresses appeals from orders under Section 47, which deals
with execution proceedings. Errors or defects in execution orders will not result in the reversal or variation of
the decree unless they have materially affected the case.

Order 41: Appeals from Original Decrees

Order 41 lays down the procedure for filing, hearing, and deciding appeals from original decrees.
 37

1. Rule 1: Form of Appeal and Memorandum:

o Appeals must be filed through a memorandum of appeal, specifying the grounds of appeal. The
memorandum must be signed by the appellant or their legal representative.

2. Rule 2: Grounds of Objection:

o Grounds that were not specified in the memorandum of appeal cannot be argued unless the court
permits it, if the omission was not deliberate.

3. Rule 5: Stay of Proceedings and Execution:

o The appellate court may grant a stay of execution of the decree if the appellant demonstrates the
risk of irreparable harm if the decree is executed before the appeal is decided.

o A stay may be conditional, requiring the appellant to furnish security.

4. Rule 9: Dismissal of Appeals for Default:

o If the appellant does not appear on the date fixed for the hearing, the appeal may be dismissed for
default.

5. Rule 11: Dismissal of Appeal Without Notice to Respondent:

o If the court finds that there are no sufficient grounds for appeal, it may dismiss the appeal without
issuing notice to the respondent.

6. Rule 23: Remand of Case:

o The appellate court may remand the case to the trial court if the trial court omitted to frame or
decide important issues necessary for determining the case.

7. Rule 27: Production of Additional Evidence:

o Additional evidence may be admitted if:

 The lower court wrongly refused to admit evidence.

 The evidence was not available to the appellant at the time of the trial.

 The appellate court itself needs the evidence to properly decide the appeal.

8. Rule 33: Power of the Appellate Court to Modify or Reverse Decree:

o The appellate court has wide discretion to modify, reverse, or affirm the decree of the trial court,
even in favor of respondents who may not have appealed or filed a cross-objection.

II. Second Appeal (Section 100, Order 42)

Section 100: Second Appeal

A second appeal can be filed in the High Court only if the case involves a substantial question of law. Second appeals
cannot be used to reexamine factual findings of the lower courts unless intertwined with legal errors.

 Substantial Question of Law: The appeal must raise a significant legal question affecting the outcome of the
case.

 Duty of High Court: The High Court must frame the substantial question of law before hearing the appeal.

Section 101: No Second Appeal on Facts

 38

 No second appeal shall lie except on a substantial question of law. Facts and findings from the lower courts
are generally considered final and binding.

Order 42: Procedure for Second Appeals

The procedure for second appeals follows that of first appeals under Order 41, but the High Court must first decide if
a substantial question of law exists. If so, it proceeds with the hearing.

III. Appeals from Orders (Sections 104-108, Order 43)

Section 104: Appeals from Orders

Section 104 specifies the orders from which appeals can be filed, even if they do not result in a final decree. These
are usually interlocutory orders (orders made during the proceedings).

Appealable Orders:

1. Orders imposing compensatory costs (Section 35A).

2. Orders related to attachment, arrest, or injunctions.

3. Orders setting aside or refusing to set aside arbitration awards.

 No Further Appeal: No second appeal is allowed from an appellate order passed under Section 104.

Section 105: Appeals from Non-Appealable Orders

 Even if an order is not directly appealable, it can be challenged indirectly during an appeal against the final
decree.

Section 106: Appeals in Appellate Jurisdiction

 Appeals can be filed against orders made by District Courts or Small Cause Courts exercising appellate
jurisdiction.

Section 107: Powers of the Appellate Court

 Powers of the Appellate Court: The appellate court has broad powers, including:

1. To determine the case finally.

2. To remand the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

3. To frame new issues and take additional evidence if needed.

Section 108: Procedure in Appeals

 Procedure: This section states that the rules of procedure for appeals in subordinate courts are the same as
those applicable to original courts. Essentially, the procedure followed in the appellate courts mirrors the
lower courts unless specifically modified by the CPC.

Section 109: Appeals to the Supreme Court

 Appeals to Supreme Court: This section provides for appeals to the Supreme Court from judgments, decrees,
or orders of High Courts, but only in cases that:

1. Involve a substantial question of law of general importance, and

2. The High Court certifies that the question is fit for determination by the Supreme Court.
 39

Order 43: Appeals from Orders

Order 43 provides the list of orders that are appealable under Section 104. The appealable orders include:

1. Order 7, Rule 10: Orders for the return of a plaint.

2. Order 9, Rule 13: Orders refusing to set aside an ex parte decree.

3. Order 39, Rule 1: Orders granting or refusing interim injunctions.

4. Order 21: Orders regarding execution of decrees, such as attachment, sale, or arrest.

IV. Appeals by Indigent Persons (Order 44)

Order 44: Appeals by Indigent Persons

This order provides for appeals by indigent persons who are unable to pay court fees.

 Rule 1: An indigent person can appeal without paying the required court fees. The appellant must apply to
the court for permission to proceed as an indigent person.

 Rule 2: If the application to proceed as an indigent person is rejected, the appellant may be granted time to
pay the fees, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.

V. Appeals to the Supreme Court (Section 109, Order 45)

Section 109: Appeals to the Supreme Court

Appeals to the Supreme Court are permitted from judgments, decrees, or final orders passed by a High Court in civil
matters, provided that:

1. The High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance.

2. The High Court opines that the question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Order 45: Procedure for Appeals to the Supreme Court

Order 45 outlines the procedure for filing appeals to the Supreme Court, including:

 Application for Certificate: The appellant must apply to the High Court for a certificate of fitness.

 Granting or Refusing Certificate: The High Court decides whether the appeal involves a substantial question
of law.

VI. Relevant Provisions of the Limitation Act (Sections 116-117)

Section 116: Appeal from Orders of High Court to Supreme Court

The Limitation Act provides a 90-day period for filing appeals to the Supreme Court from High Court decrees or
orders.

Section 117: Limitation for Other Appeals

The limitation periods for appeals to the Supreme Court and other courts are governed by the provisions of the
Limitation Act unless modified by other laws.
 40

Reference, Review, and Revision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, provides avenues for challenging decisions of lower courts through
Reference (Order 46), Review (Order 47 read with Section 114), and Revision (Section 115). Each remedy serves a
distinct purpose and offers parties the opportunity to seek rectification of legal errors, misinterpretations, or
jurisdictional issues without appealing directly.

This explanation will cover all applicable sections, rules, and orders in detail.

I. Reference (Order 46)

Order 46 of the CPC allows subordinate courts to refer a question of law to the High Court when they encounter
uncertainty or doubt. This mechanism ensures that lower courts apply the correct interpretation of the law,
preventing miscarriage of justice.

What is Reference?

Reference is the process by which a subordinate court submits a specific question of law for the opinion of the High
Court when it has doubts regarding the interpretation or validity of any legal provision. The court may refer the
matter suo motu (on its own) or upon application by a party.

When Can a Reference Be Made?

A subordinate court may refer a matter to the High Court in the following circumstances:

1. Reasonable Doubt about a Question of Law (Rule 1):

o When the subordinate court entertains reasonable doubt about a question of law relevant to the
case, it can refer that question to the High Court for guidance.

2. Doubt about the Validity of a Law (Rule 2):

o If the court believes that a statute, ordinance, or regulation is invalid or unconstitutional, it can
make a reference to the High Court for clarification.

3. Pending Decision on Similar Question (Rule 3):

o When the subordinate court finds that a similar legal issue is already pending in the High Court, it
may refer the matter to avoid contradictory rulings.

Procedure for Reference:

1. Formulation of Questions (Rule 1):

o The court referring the case must clearly state the question of law that requires the High Court’s
opinion.

2. Stay of Proceedings (Rule 2):

o The subordinate court may stay its proceedings while awaiting the High Court’s decision on the
referred question.

3. Opinion of the High Court (Rule 5):

o Once the High Court gives its opinion, the subordinate court is bound to follow that opinion while
deciding the case.

4. Decision of the High Court Binding:

 41

o The High Court’s opinion on the reference is binding on the subordinate court and must be followed
in the case.

Important Rules under Order 46:

 Rule 3: If the question of law has already been decided by the High Court, a fresh reference on the same
question is not required.

 Rule 4: The High Court may decline to answer the reference if it deems the question irrelevant or
unnecessary for the case’s final determination.

Landmark Judgments on Reference:

1. Chowgule & Co. v. Union of India (2003):

o Held that a reference under Order 46 should be made only when there is a genuine doubt on a
substantial question of law.

2. Jai Hind Iron Mart v. Tulsiram Bhagwandas (AIR 1987 Bombay 131):

o The court clarified that a reference is to be used only when absolutely necessary, as courts are
expected to decide cases on legal issues that have already been settled by higher courts.

II. Review (Order 47 read with Section 114)

Order 47 of the CPC, when read with Section 114, provides for a review of a judgment or order by the same court
that passed it. This remedy is used to correct apparent mistakes or consider new evidence that could not have been
presented earlier.

Section 114: Review of Judgment

 Scope: Section 114 grants the right to an aggrieved party to apply for a review of any decree or order passed
by a court. This is an extraordinary power of civil courts to revisit their own decisions in limited
circumstances.

 Jurisdiction: The court that passed the original decree or order has the jurisdiction to review it.

Grounds for Review (Order 47, Rule 1):

1. Discovery of New Evidence: A review can be sought when the applicant discovers new and important
evidence that, despite due diligence, was not available during the trial.

2. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: A glaring and self-evident mistake, such as an incorrect legal
interpretation, can justify a review.

3. Any Other Sufficient Reason: Courts can also review judgments for reasons other than new evidence or
apparent errors if it meets the standards of justice.

Procedure for Review (Order 47, Rule 2):

 Application: The aggrieved party must file an application specifying the grounds for review within the
prescribed time limit (usually 30 days).

 Affidavit: The application must be accompanied by an affidavit explaining the reasons for seeking a review.

 No Review after Appeal: If an appeal has been filed against the judgment, a review application cannot be
filed.

Important Rules under Order 47:

 42

 Rule 4: The court may reject an application for review if it finds no merit, or it may grant a review after
hearing the parties involved.

 Rule 6: Once a review application is granted, the case is reopened and heard again on the merits.

Restrictions on Review (Order 47, Rule 9):

 A review application can be filed only once. No second review of the same judgment is allowed.

Landmark Judgments on Review:

1. Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa (1999):

o The court emphasized that a review is not an appeal in disguise and should only be allowed when
there is a clear error of law or new evidence is discovered.

2. S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka (1993):

o The Supreme Court held that the power of review is not meant to re-hear cases. It is limited to
correcting glaring errors or considering new, previously unavailable facts.

III. Revision (Section 115)

Section 115 of the CPC provides the mechanism for revision. Revision allows the High Court to examine the legality
of decisions made by subordinate courts to ensure that they have acted within their jurisdiction and followed proper
legal procedures.

Section 115: Revision by the High Court

 Scope: Revision is a discretionary power exercised by the High Court to correct jurisdictional errors made by
subordinate courts. It is not intended to re-examine the merits of the case, but to ensure that the
subordinate court acted within its legal boundaries.

 Jurisdictional Grounds for Revision:

1. The subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law.

2. The subordinate court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law.

3. The subordinate court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction.

Key Restrictions under Section 115:

1. No Revision Against Interlocutory Orders: Revision cannot be filed against interim or interlocutory orders
unless the order finally disposes of the entire case.

2. High Court’s Discretion: The High Court may decline to interfere unless it deems that a significant
miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Procedure for Revision:

1. Application: The aggrieved party must file an application before the High Court.

2. Calling for Records: The High Court may call for the records from the subordinate court to examine the case.

3. Hearing: Both parties are given an opportunity to be heard before the High Court makes its decision.

4. Order: The High Court can pass such orders as it sees fit, either confirming or modifying the subordinate
court’s decision, or remanding the case for retrial.
 43

Important Rules and Principles:

 Finality of Orders: Revision applies only to final decisions that affect the rights of the parties. Interlocutory
orders generally cannot be revised.

 No Reappreciation of Evidence: The High Court cannot re-examine or reappreciate evidence presented
before the subordinate court.

Landmark Judgments on Revision:

1. Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai (1987):

o The court ruled that jurisdictional errors are the only grounds for revision, not the merits of the
case.

2. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (1970):

o It was held that revisionary powers should be used sparingly and only to prevent gross miscarriages
of justice.

Comparison: Reference, Review, and Revision

 Reference (Order 46): Subordinate courts refer a question of law to the High Court for guidance. This is
typically used in cases involving doubts about legal interpretation.

 Review (Order 47, Section 114): The same court reviews its judgment to correct apparent errors or consider
new evidence. Review is limited to rectifying errors within the same court.

 Revision (Section 115): The High Court revises subordinate court decisions based on jurisdictional errors or
illegality, without reexamining the merits.

Execution of Decrees and Orders under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

Execution is the process by which a decree or order passed by a court is implemented. It refers to the enforcement of
a decree by compelling the judgment-debtor to fulfill the obligations imposed by the court’s judgment. The relevant
provisions for execution are detailed in Sections 36 to 74 of the CPC and Order 21 of the CPC, along with relevant
rules from the Limitation Act.

I. Sections 36 to 74 of the CPC: Execution of Decrees and Orders

Section 36: Application of Provisions

 The provisions relating to execution apply not only to decrees but also to orders.

 The court which passed the decree or any competent court can execute it.

Section 37: Definition of Court Which Passed a Decree

 This section defines the term “court which passed a decree,” including:

o The court of first instance or appellate court that passed the decree.

o Where the court of first instance has ceased to exist, the court with jurisdiction to try the case.

Sections 38-39: Courts by Which Decrees May Be Executed

 44

 Section 38: A decree can be executed by the court which passed it or by a court to which it is transferred for
execution.

 Section 39: Courts may transfer decrees for execution to other courts if:

1. The judgment-debtor resides or has property within the jurisdiction of another court.

2. The decree directs the sale or delivery of immovable property outside the jurisdiction of the court
which passed the decree.

Section 40: Transfer of Decrees to Other States

 If a decree requires execution in a different State, the decree can be transferred to a court in that State for
execution.

Sections 41-42: Execution of Transferred Decrees

 Section 41: The court to which a decree has been transferred must certify the result of the execution to the
transferring court.

 Section 42: The transferee court holds all powers related to the execution of the decree.

Sections 47: Determination of Questions by Executing Court

 All questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree must be determined by the
court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

Sections 51-54: Modes of Execution

The court has the power to enforce execution through various means:

 Section 51: The court may enforce execution by:

1. Delivery of property.

2. Attachment and sale of property.

3. Arrest and detention in civil prison.

4. Appointment of a receiver.

 Section 52: A decree can also be executed against the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor.

 Section 53: Decrees can be executed against ancestral property when the decree pertains to the debt of a
deceased ancestor.

Sections 55-59: Arrest and Detention

These sections deal with the arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor:

 Section 55: A judgment-debtor can be arrested and detained in civil prison if they fail to comply with the
decree.

 Section 56: Women cannot be arrested or detained in execution of a money decree.

 Section 57: The arrested judgment-debtor is entitled to a subsistence allowance.

 Section 58: Imprisonment in execution does not discharge the debtor from the obligation to pay.

 Section 59: A judgment-debtor may be released due to illness.

Sections 60-64: Attachment of Property

 45

 Section 60: Specifies which properties are liable to be attached and sold in execution. Certain properties like
salary (subject to limits), tools of artisans, and agricultural implements are exempt from attachment.

 Section 61: Agricultural produce enjoys partial exemption from attachment.

 Section 64: Private alienation of property after attachment is void.

Sections 65-74: Sale of Property and Distribution of Assets

 Section 65: The purchaser of property sold in execution acquires the same rights as the judgment-debtor.

 Section 73: Proceeds from the sale of attached property should be rateably distributed among all decree-
holders.

II. Order 21: Execution of Decrees and Orders

Order 21 of the CPC provides the detailed procedure for the execution of decrees and orders. Some important rules
include:

Applications for Execution (Rules 10-24)

1. Rule 10: Applications for execution must be made to the court which passed the decree or to which it has
been transferred.

2. Rule 11: Oral applications for execution can be made at the time of the decree, but written applications must
follow the prescribed form.

3. Rule 12: The application must contain details about the property to be attached or sold.

4. Rule 22: A notice must be issued to the judgment-debtor if the execution application is made after two years
from the decree or against a legal representative.

Process for Execution (Rules 24-37)

1. Rule 24: The court issues a process for execution, such as warrants for attachment or sale of property.

2. Rule 30: Decrees for payment of money can be executed by the detention of the judgment-debtor or the
attachment and sale of their property.

3. Rule 32: The court has discretionary powers to enforce decrees for specific performance or injunctions.

Attachment of Property (Rules 41-64)

1. Rule 41: The court can examine the judgment-debtor regarding their property.

2. Rule 43: Movable property not in the possession of the judgment-debtor can be attached.

3. Rule 54: The attachment of immovable property is made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from
transferring or dealing with the property.

Sale of Property (Rules 64-94)

1. Rule 64: The court may order the sale of attached property to satisfy the decree.

2. Rule 85: The purchaser must deposit the full purchase money within the time frame specified by the court.

3. Rule 90: An application to set aside a sale on the ground of fraud or irregularity can be made.

III. Types of Execution

 46

1. Execution by Delivery of Property: This involves physically handing over the property (movable or
immovable) to the decree-holder.

2. Execution by Attachment and Sale of Property: The court may attach and sell the property of the judgment-
debtor to satisfy the decree.

3. Execution by Arrest and Detention: If the judgment-debtor willfully neglects to satisfy the decree, they can
be arrested and detained in civil prison.

4. Execution by Appointment of Receiver: The court can appoint a receiver to manage the property or assets of
the judgment-debtor for the benefit of the decree-holder.

IV. Limitation Act, 1963: Sections 3-5, 12-22

The Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes time limits within which execution proceedings must be initiated.

Section 3: Bar of Limitation

 If a suit, appeal, or application is filed after the prescribed period of limitation, it must be dismissed, even if
limitation is not pleaded by the parties.

Section 5: Extension of the Prescribed Period

 The court may admit an appeal or application after the prescribed period if the applicant satisfies the court
that there was sufficient cause for the delay.

Section 12-22: Exclusion of Time

 Section 12: Time taken to obtain certified copies of decrees and orders is excluded in calculating the
limitation period.

 Section 14: Time spent in prosecuting a suit in a court without jurisdiction is excluded.

 Section 21: If a new party is added to a suit, limitation applies to them from the date of their addition.

Detailed Explanation of Order 13A and Order 15A under the Commercial Courts Act

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was introduced to improve the efficiency of the judicial process in commercial
disputes and to ensure that such disputes are resolved expeditiously. As part of this effort, two important provisions
were introduced: Order 13A for summary judgments and Order 15A for case management hearings.

These provisions aim to streamline litigation, minimize delays, and ensure that commercial disputes are resolved
effectively and quickly.

I. Order 13A – Summary Judgment

Order 13A deals with the mechanism of summary judgment in commercial disputes. This is a process by which the
court can resolve a case without recording oral evidence, provided that one party does not have a realistic prospect
of succeeding.

Scope and Applicability (Rule 1)

 This provision applies to commercial disputes where the court can decide a claim without the need for a full
trial and without recording oral evidence.

 A claim includes part of a claim or any particular question on which the claim depends.
 47

When Can an Application for Summary Judgment Be Made? (Rule 2)

 An application for summary judgment can be made by either the plaintiff or the defendant after the
summons has been served but before the court frames issues in the suit.

 Importantly, no application for summary judgment can be made in suits originally filed as summary suits
under Order 37 of the CPC.

Grounds for Summary Judgment (Rule 3)

The court can grant a summary judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant if it is satisfied that:

1. The plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim.

2. The defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

3. There is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording oral evidence.

Procedure for Summary Judgment (Rule 4)

 The applicant must file an application for summary judgment specifying the reasons for seeking such relief,
along with any documentary evidence relied upon.

 The respondent may file a reply within 30 days addressing the grounds in the application.

Important Rules:

 Rule 5: The respondent must be given at least 30 days' notice before the summary judgment hearing.

 Rule 6: If the court decides to grant summary judgment, it can pass a decree in favor of the applicant without
going through a full trial.

Landmark Judgment on Summary Judgment:

1. ITC Limited v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (2013):

o The court highlighted that summary judgments should be used in cases where there is no significant
dispute over facts and law, promoting efficiency in commercial litigation.

2. Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation (1977):

o The Supreme Court clarified the principles that govern the grant of summary judgment under
commercial laws.

II. Order 15A – Case Management Hearing

Order 15A introduces a structured case management system in commercial disputes to ensure that the litigation
proceeds efficiently and within a fixed timeline. It empowers the court to control the case proceedings by setting
clear deadlines and schedules for the parties to adhere to.

First Case Management Hearing (Rule 1)

 The court must hold the first case management hearing within 4 weeks from the date on which the affidavit
of admission or denial of documents is filed by all parties.

Orders in Case Management Hearing (Rule 2)

During the case management hearing, the court may pass the following orders:

1. Framing issues between the parties in accordance with Order 14 of the CPC.
 48

2. Listing witnesses to be examined by both parties.

3. Fixing timelines for the submission of evidence by affidavit, recording of evidence, and filing written
arguments.

4. Fixing time limits for oral arguments to ensure the trial is concluded efficiently.

Time Limit for Completion of Trial (Rule 3)

 The court must ensure that arguments are concluded within 6 months from the date of the first case
management hearing.

Recording Oral Evidence on a Day-to-Day Basis (Rule 4)

 The court must endeavor to record oral evidence continuously on a day-to-day basis until the examination
and cross-examination of witnesses are completed.

Consequences of Non-Compliance (Rule 8)

 If a party fails to comply with a court order during a case management hearing, the court has the power to:

1. Impose costs on the non-compliant party.

2. Foreclose the right of the party to file further affidavits, conduct cross-examination, or make
arguments.

3. Dismiss the plaint or allow the suit where the non-compliance is willful or repeated.

Landmark Judgment on Case Management:

1. Ambica Construction v. Union of India (2017):

o The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of case management hearings in avoiding delays and
ensuring that commercial disputes are resolved within a fixed timeline.

2. Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh (1994):

o The court noted the importance of case management in expediting litigation, especially in complex
commercial matters.

Conclusion

The introduction of Order 13A (Summary Judgment) and Order 15A (Case Management Hearing) under the
Commercial Courts Act represents a significant shift in the handling of commercial disputes in India. These provisions
are designed to streamline the process of litigation, reduce delays, and encourage more efficient resolution of
commercial cases.

 Order 13A provides a mechanism for deciding cases quickly when there is no substantial defense or when a
claim lacks merit.

 Order 15A ensures that the progress of a commercial case is closely monitored, with strict timelines set for
various stages of the trial, thus minimizing unnecessary delays.

Both orders are key tools in the effective functioning of commercial courts, aimed at promoting swift and fair
resolution of disputes in line with the objectives of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.