THE TAMIL NADU Dr. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY CHENNAI CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE STUDY MATERIAL By DR. P. BRINDA, Assistant Professor (SS), Department of Intellectual Property Law, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University. SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAWPREFACE ‘The Law regulating the procedure to be followed in civil court is governed by the Civil Procedure Code and this Civil Procedure Code is one of the most important branches of the procedural law. It is a Procedural law or adjective law which prescribes the procedure and machinery for the enforcement of the rights and liabilities of parties in accordance with the rules of the substantive law. The main object of this civil procedure code is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure and practices followed in the Civil Courts in India, As such, it was enshrined in the preamble of the code that it was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure to be followed in the civil courts having civil jurisdiction in India. The Civil Procedure Code regulates every action in civil courts and the parties before it from the institution of the suit till the final disposal. The Body of the Code lays down general principles relating to Power of the court, and in the case of the second part, that is, the Schedule provides for the procedures, methods and mannersin which the jurisdiction of the court may be exercise. It is for general welfare that a period be put on litigation. Further, it is a general principle of law that law is made to protect only diligent and vigilant people. Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. Law will not protect people who are careless about their rights. Moreover, there should be certainty in law and matters cannot be kept in suspense indefinably. It i, therefore, provided that Courts of Law cannot be approached beyond fixed period. In civil matters, the limit is provided in Limitation Act, 1963. The body of the Code lays down the procedures for calculation of limitation period and the Schedule provides the exact period of limitation for suits, appeals and applications, In this course material I have given basic substance of all units of civil procedure code and Limitation Act with case laws and illustrations wherever necessary. I hope the material would help the students who need it the most. Dr. P.Brinda, Assistant Professor, Department of Intellectual Property Law, ‘The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University.CONTENTS UNIT - I: INTRODUCTION Definitions Jurisdiction of civil court Res subjudice Res judicata Place of suing Institution of suits Parties to the suit sayeere UNIT - II: PLEADINGS AND TRIAL Pleadings Plaint Written statement Service of Summons ‘Appearance of parties and non-appearance of parties Discovery, Inspection and Production of documents ‘Admission Impounding and retum of documents ). Affidavit 10, Payment into court 11. Security for cost 12. Transfer of suits 13, Judgment 14, Remand 15. Commissions 16, Arrest and attachment before judgment 17. Temporary injunction and Interlocutory Order 18. Appointment of Receiver 19. Appeals 20. Reference 21. Review 22. Revision 23. Caveat 24, Inherent power of courts PEI AA ee UNIT - III: SUITS IN PARTICULAR CASES Suits by or against the government or the public officers in their official capacity Suits by indigent persons Suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind Interpleader suit ‘Summary suits Suits by aliens Suits by or against foreign rulers, ambassadors and envoys Suits by or against rulers of former Indian states Suits relating to public nuisance Per avaene10, Suits relating to public trusts, I. Suits by or against military or naval men or airmen 12. Suits by or against corporations 13. Suits by or against firms 14, Suits by or against trustees, executors and administrators 15, Suits relating to family matters 16. Suits relating to mortgages 17. Friendly suits 18. Suits involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution or as to the validity of any statutory instrument UNIT - IV: EXECUTION . General principles . Courts by which decree may be executive Mode of execution Stay of execution Arrest and detention Attachment of property Sale and delivery of property NO eeNe UNIT - V: LIMITATION ACT |. Computation of period of limitation 1 2. 3. 4 5. Acquisition of ownership by possession.UNIT-1 The ‘Code of Civil Procedure’ is a procedure law, ie., an adjective law. The Code neither creates nor takes away any right. It only helps in proving or implementing the “Substantive Law’, The Code contains 158 Sections and 51 Orders. The object of the Code is to consolidate -laws-relating to-the procedure to be adopted by the-Civil Courts) and amend the law relating to the procedure of Courts of Civil Procedure, The procedural laws are“ always retrospective in-operation unless there are good reasons to the contrary. The reason. is. that-no" one can have-a-vested right in forms of procedure gfhe Code of Civil Procedure is not retrospective in operation. The Code is not exhaustive, Definition: Section-2(2) “Decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either Preliminary or final, It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section-144, but shall not include:- 8) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or b) any order for dismissal for default. Explanation: A decree is preliminary where further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final. Decree (Section-2 (2)] and Order [Section-2 (14)] Essential Elements of a decree: The decision of a Court can be termed as a “decree” upon the satisfaction of the following elements:- 1. There must be an adjudication TI. Such adjudication must have been given in a suit TIL. It must have determined the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matter in ‘controversy in the suit. IV. Such determination must be of a conclusive nature and ‘V. There must be formal expression v of such adjudication. 8) An Adjudication: Adjudication means “the judicial determination of the matter’ in dispute”. If there is no judicial determination of any matter in dispute or such judici determination is not by a Court, it is not a decree; e.g., an order of dismissal of a suit in default for non appearance of parties, or of dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution are not decrees because they do not judicially deal with the matter in dispute,b) In a Suit: Suit means a Civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a Plain. Thus, every suit is instituted by the presentation of Plaint. Where there is no Civil suit, there is no decree; e.g., Rejection of an application for leave to sue in forma pauper is not a decree, because there cannot be a plaint in such case until the application is granted. Exception: But where in an enactment specific provisions have been made to treat the applications as suits, then they are statutory suits and the decision given thereunder are, therefore, decrees; ¢.g., proceeding under the Indian Succession Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, the Land Acquisition Act, the Arbitration Act, etc, ©) Rights of the parties: The adjudication must have determined the rights ie., the substantive rights and not merely procedural rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matter in controversy in the suit. “Rights of the parties” under section 2(2). The rights of the parties inter se (between the parties) relating to status, limitation, jurisdictions, frame of suit. accounts, ete “Rights in matters in procedure” are not included in section 2(2); e.g, An order of dismissal for non-prosecution of an application for execution, or refusing leave to sue in forma pauperis, or a mere right to sue, are not decrees as they do not determine the rights of the parties. 4) Conclusive Determination: The determination must be final and conclusive as regards the Court, which passes it. ‘An interlocutory order which does not finally decide the rights of the parties is not a decree; eg. An order refusing an adjournment, or of striking out defence of a tenant under the relevant Rent Act, or an order passed by the appellate Court under Order 41, rule 23 to decide some issues and remitting other issues to the trial Court for determination are not decrees because they do not decide the rights of the parties conclusively. Buf, An order dismissing an appeal summarily under Order-41, or holding it to be not maintainable, or dismissal of a suit for want of evidence or proof are decrees, because they conclusively decide the rights of the parties to the suit. ©) Formal Expression: There must be a formal expression of such adjudication. The formal expression must be deliberate and given in the manner provided by law. Decree means “formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in ‘controversy in the suit”. It may be preliminary or final. The term ‘suit“is not defined in the code. However in *Hansraj- vs- Dehradun- Mussoorie Electric Tramways Co Ltd, Privy council defined ‘suit’ as a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint” > Under certain enactments, specific provisions have been made to treat applications as suits.eg:- proceedings under Indian Succession Act, Hindu ‘Marriage Act, Land Acquisition Act, Arbitration Act. EteProvisions in the Code for passing of the Preliminary Decrees: 8. Suits for possession and mesne profit; Order 20 Rule 12 b. Administrative Suits; Order 20 Rule 13 ¢. Suits for ,Pre-emption; Order 20 Rule 14 4. Suits for dissolution of Partnership; Order 20 Rule 15 ¢. Suits for accounts between principal and agent; Order 20 Rule 16 £. Suits for partition and separate possession; Order 20 Rule 18 8. Suits for foreclosure of a mortgage; Order 34 Rules 2-3 Besides above the Court has a power to pass a preliminary decree in cases not expressly provided in the Code. Whether there can be more than one preliminary decree? Debate was concluded by Supreme Court in *Phoolchand -vs- Gopal Lal, A.LR. 1967, S.C. 1470, the Apex Court has decided that “C.P.C. does not prohibits passing of more than one preliminary decree, if circumstances justify the same and it may be necessary to do so”. That nothing in this code prohibits passing more than one FINAL DECREE: Decree may be said to be final in two ways (i) when within prescribed period no appeal is filed or matter has been decided by the decree of the highest Court. (ii) when the decree , so far as regards the Court passing it , completely disposes of the suit. If an appeal preferred against a preliminary decree succeeds, the final decree automatically falls to the ground for there is no preliminary decree thereafter in support of it. In such case it is not necessary for the defendant to go to the Court to set aside the final decree. *Sital Parshad -vs- Kishori Lal Partly Preliminary & Partly Final Decree:- Eg:- suit for possession of immovable property with mesne profit (i decree for possession of property (final)and (i) directs an enquiry in to the mesne profit (preliminary)Deemed decree: e.g. rejection of plaint & the determination of questions under section 144(Restitution); Adjudication under 021 R58, R98 or R100 are deemed decrees. Rejection of plaint:- ‘Though does not preclude the plaintiff from the presenting a fresh plaint on the same cause of action. Section 2(2) of CPC specifically provides that rejection of plaint shall be deemed to be a decree. Judgement: section 2(9) “Statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order” *Balraj Taheja —vs- Sunil Madan Essential of judgement: Other than small causes Court (i) concise statement of the case (ii) properties for determination (iii) decision thereon (iv) reasons for such decision Orders 2(14): “Formal expression of any decision of a civil Court which is not a decree” or “Adjudication of a Court which is not a decree is an order”. ‘Similarities between order and decree are 1. both relates to matters in controversy 2. both are decisions given by Court 3. both are adjudications of a Court of law 4. both are a formal expressions of a decision. Distinction:- DECREE ‘ORDER 1. can be passed only in a suit May originate from suit petition or application2 Conclusively determines the | May / Not conclusively determines rights of the parties, 3. may be preliminary , final partly | There cannot be a order preliminary preliminary or final 4 in every suit there can be one | A number of order may be passed decree every decree is appealable Every order is not appealable only those orders specified in the code are Appealable ©. second appeal lies to the High |No second appeal in case of Court appealable orders. Definition: Decree Holder Sec 2 (3): “Decree-Holder” means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. Definition: Judgment Debtor Sec 2 (10): “Judgment-Debtor” means any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. Definition: Legal Representative Sec 2 (11): “Legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or issued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Definition Mesne Profit Sec 2 (12): “means profits” of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made but the person in wrongful possession. ‘Which means; > profit received by a person in wrongful possession together with interest > shall not include profits, due to improvements made by him. Test to ascertain mesne profits is not “what the plaintiff has lost but what the defendant gained.Principles to be followed: 1. No profit to be given to a person in wrongful possession 2. Restoration of status before dispossession of decree holder. In *Lucy —vs- Mariappa, It was held that Interest is an integral part of mesne profit, Interest is allowed in computation of mesne profit itself till the date of payment. *Mahant narayanan dasjee -vs- Tirupathi devasthanam. > Interest shall not exceed 6%per annum. Terms not defined in the code:- Affidavit: “Declaration of facts (by party), reduced to writing, affirmed or sworn before an officer having authority to administer Oaths”. Appeal: “Judicial examination of the decision by a Court on the decision of an inferior Court”. Cause of Action: “a bundle of essential facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed”. —.. Caveat: “official request that one should not take a particular action without issuing Summons: “a document issued from an office of a Court of justice, calling upon a person to attend before the judge / office to give evidence / produce documents”. JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS Jurisdiction - definition —“power or authority of a Court to hear &determine a cause, to adjudicate & exercise any judicial power in relation to it”. Or “Extent of the authority of Court to administer justice prescribed with reference to the subject matter, pecuniary value and local limits”. In *UOI v. Tarachand Gupta and *Official Trustee v. Sachindra it was held that jurisdiction must include the power to hear and decide the question at issue, the authority to hear and decide the particular controversy that has arisen between the parties, Kinds of jurisdiction: 101. pecuniary jurisdiction 2. territorial jurisdiction and 3._ jurisdiction as to subject-matter Jurisdiction of Court may be original or appellate. In the exercise of original jurisdiction a Court entertains original suits, while in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction it entertains appeal. The Munsif's Court and the Court of small causes have only original jurisdiction the District Judge’s Court and the various other Courts have appellate jurisdiction. SECTION 9: SUITS OF CIVIL NATURE: Civil nature pertains to private rights and remedies of a citizen. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred— The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Explanation I.—A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. Explanation Il- For the purposes of this section, itis immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.). ‘A suit is of civil nature if the principal question in the suit relates to the determination of a civil right. This if the principal question in the suit is a caste question or a question relating to religious rites or ceremonies, the suit is not of a civil nature. However, the dispute as to right of worship is one of a civil nature within the meaning of Section 9. In order to fall within the purview of the term “of a civil nature” the suit must be for the enforeceme4nt of rights and obligations of a citizen and not matters which are purely social. Ifthe principal question of civil nature and if the subsidiary question is in religious nature, it shall be construed that itis a suit of civil nature. Under section 9 the civil Courts power is restricted only to suits and or disputes of civil nature. Ie will be noticed from the provisions contained in sec 9 of the code that a bar to file a civil suit may be express or implied. An express bar is where a statute itself contains 4 provision that a jurisdiction of a civil Court is barred e.g., the bar contained in section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Expressly barred:- In *Bata Shoe Company v. Jabalpur Municipality, it was held that matters falling within exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Court, under Criminal Procedure Code, Industrial Tribunal, Income Tax Tribunal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bar Council are completely ousted from the Jurisdiction of civil Courts. Bry2 *State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga if the remedy provided by the Statute is inadequate all questions cannot be decided by a special tribunal, the jurisdiction of civil Court is not barred. ‘Suits impliedly barred:- ‘Suits which are barred by general principles of law are considered to be impliedly barred. ‘*Premier Automobiles v. K.S.Wadke > where an Act creates an obligation and enforces its performance in a special manner, that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner. “Indian Airlines v. Sukdeo Rai > certain suits, though of civil nature are barred from the cognizance of civil Court on the ground of public policy. ‘Who may decide the jurisdiction of a Court? *A.R Antulay v. R.S.Nayak > Civil Court has inherent power to decide its own jurisdiction. Burden of proof:- Lies on the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of civil Court. And it must be construed strictly. *Abdul v. Bhawani. SECTION 10: RES SUBJUDICE (Stay of Suit) Stay of suit— No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. Section 10 prevents Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigation in respect of same cause of action, same subject matter and same relief. It must be noted that the second suit is not dismissed as, barred, it is only the trial of ht suit that is not proceeded with and is stayed. The section is. no bar to the institution of a second suit. A decree passed in contravention of section 10 is nullity.B Conditions for the applicability of Section 10: In order to attract the application of this section it is necessary that the following conditions must be fulfilled. ‘A previously instituted suit is pending in a Court. (includes appeal) 2. The matter in issue in the second suit is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit. 3. The previously instituted suit must be pending in the same Court in which the subsequent suit is brought, or in any other Court in India or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government or in the Supreme Court, 4, The Court in which the previous suit is pending has competent jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. 5. The parties in the two suits are the same and 6. The parties must be litigating under the same ttle in both the suits. “Life Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd v. Bengal Medical Hall > No discretion left to the Court. The order staying proceedings in the subsequent suit must be stayed. ‘The words “matter in issue” in sec 10 means the entire matter in controversy and-niot one of the several issues in the case. In *Kunthi sankara Eaman v. Vankappa Bhatia, It was held that where the earlier suit was for recovery of rent for a certain period and the subsequent suit is for recovery of rent for subsequent years and for ejectment, the matter in issue in the two suits would not be deemed to be the same and sec10 would not be applicable. SECTION 11: RESJUDICATA Section 11 of the CPC embodies the doctrine of Resjudicata of the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment. In the absence of such rule, there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put to constant trouble, harassment and expenses. This doctrine is bases on the maxim “ex captio res judicata” means “one suit and one decision is enough for any single dispute”. The doctrine is a fundamental concept based on public policy and private interest. The Doctrine of Res Judicata is based on 3 maxims viz 1.“Nemo debet lis vexari pro una et eadem causa” means “No man should be vexed twice for the same cause”, 2."Interest republicae ut sit finis litium” It is in the interest of the state that there should be ‘an end to litigation 3. “Res judicata pro veritate occipitur”- A judicial decision must be accepted as correct4 The first maxim looks to the interest of the litigant, who should be protected from a vexatious multiplicity of suits, for otherwise a man possessed of wealth and capacity to fight may overawe his adversary by constant dread to litigation. The second maxim is based on the ground of public policy that there should be an end to litigation. “Ex Captio Res Judicata” -one suit and one decision is enough for any single dispute(roman law) Principle based on the of giving a finality to judicial decisions. Explanations under section I to VIII I former suit denote decided prior to the suit in question and not institution. Indian origin of res judicata:- ‘The principle of resjudicata (matter already decided) is founded on the ancient principles of Prangnyaya (previous judgment). The principle is thus enunciated in Brihaspati Samriti” “if a person who has been defeated in a suit according to law files his plaint once again he must be told that he has been defeated already, this is called plea of prang-nyaya". Section 11: No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. Explanation I- The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. Explanation Ill- The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by ‘one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other. Explanation IV- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explanation V- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating,15 Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as. references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIll.-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Section 11, C.P.C. embodies the rule of conclusiveness as evidence or bars as a plea of an issue tried in an earlier suit founded on a plaint in which the matter is directly and substantially in issue and became final. In a later suit between the same parties or their privies in a competent Court to try such subsequent suit in which the issue has been directly and substantially reviewed and decided in the judgment and decree in the former suit would operate as res Judicata, Section 11 does not create any right or interest in the property, but merely operat try the same issue once over. In other words, it aims to prevent multiplic proceedings and accords finality to an issue, which directly and substantially had arisen in the former suit between the same parties or their privies, decided and became final so that parties are not vexed twice over; vexatious litigation would be put to an end and the valuable time of the Court is saved. It is based on public policy, as well as private justice. They would apply, therefore, to i all judicial proceedings whether civil or otherwise. It equally applies to all quasi-judicial Proceedings of the tribunals other than the civil Courts, Res Judicata and Res Sub-Judice: ‘The rule of res Judicata in section 11 is clearly distinguishable from the rule of res sub-Judice ‘enshrined in section 10. The former relates to a matter already adjudicated upon, ie., a matter ‘on which judgment has been pronounced, while the latter relates to a matter which is pending judicial enquiry. The rule in section 10 bars the trial of a suit in which the matter directly and substantially in issue is pending judicial decision in a previously instituted suit by staying the trial of the latter suit; section 11 bars altogether the trial of a suit or an issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has already been adjudicated upon in a previous suit. Essential conditions to invoke section 11:- (1) the matter must be directly and substantially in issue in the two suits; (2) the prior suit must have been between the same parties or persons claiming under them; (G) such parties must have litigated under the same tile in the former suit; (4) the Court which determined the earlier suit must be competent to try the later suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised; and16 (5) the question directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit should have been heard and finally decided in the earlier suit. 1. Directly and substantially in issue: ‘The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same ‘matter which was directly and substantially in issue, either actually or constructively, in the former suit. The rule of res Judicata only requires the identity of the matter in issue. In order that this condition may be fulfilled it must have been alleged by one party and either denied ‘or admitted, expressly or by necessary implication, by the other. The principle of res Judicata does not depend on whether the cause of action in the two suits are identical. Causes of action in the two suits may be different, but the test is whether the matter directly and substantially in issue is the same in both suits and whether the parties are the same or the suit is between parties claiming under them and litigating under the same title. The expression “cause of action” used in this connection means that the matter in dispute is substantially the same, and the parties are the same or litigating under the same title, Itis the matter in issue directly and substantially, either actually or constructively, and not the subject-matter that forms the test of res Judicata. If the causes of action in the two suits are different, the matter in issue in them will not be the same and hence the decision in the former suit cannot operate as res Judicata. The words ‘directly and substantially in issue’ in section 11, C-P.C. are not confined to the relief granted in the former suit or to the property ‘which was its subject-matter. The words in section 11 also clearly imply that the decision on ‘a matter not essential for the relief finally granted in the former suit or which did not form ‘one of the decisions cannot be said to have been directly or substantially in issue in the former case, Thus where certain reliefs were granted in a suit to the plaintiff itis not open to the defendant to raise any plea in a subsequent suit which will interfere with the relief in the prior suit. The principle of res Judicata does not extend to anything more than this. Collaterally or incidentally in issue: The expression “collaterally or incidentally in issue” means only ancillary to the direct and substantial issue and refers to a matter in respect of which no relief is claimed but which is put in issue to enable the Court to adjudicate upon the matter which is directly and substantially in issue. Collateral and incidental issues are auxiliary issues, while direct and ‘substantial issues are the principal ones. It is only those matters which are directly and substantially in issue that constitute res Judicata and not the matters which are in issue only collaterally or incidentally. Constructive resjudicata:- All the issues must be raised in a suit. What ought to have raised if ought not raised the presumption is that the plaintiff abandoned his remedy. *The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain: In this case the petitioner was dismissed from service. He filed a writ petition for quashing the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that he was not afforded a reasonable ‘opportunity to meet the allegations against him and the action taken against him was mala fide. The petition was dismissed. Thereafter he filed a suit in which he challenged the order7 of dismissal on the ground, inter alia, that he had been appointed by the Inspector General of Police and that the Deputy Inspector General of Police was not competent to dismiss him by virtue of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. It was an-important.plea which was within the knowledge of the respondent and could well have been taken in the writ petition, but he contented himself by faising the other pleas that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the case against him in the departmental inquiry and that the action taken against him was mala fide. It was, therefore, not permissible for him to challenge his dismissal in the subsequent suit on the other ground that he had been dismissed by'an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. That was clearly barred by the- principle of constructive res Judicata, On the principle of the constructive res Judicata an objéction to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in the previous suit, which might or ought to havé been raised therein, must be deemed to have been heard’ and decided in favour of the existence of jurisdiction and the party which chooses not to raise the issue in defence is precluded from. raising it in a subsequent petition between the same parties. ‘Where a matter has been constructively in issue so as to bring it under Explanation 4 to section 11, it could not, from the very nature of the case, be heard and decided and it will be deemed to be heard and decided against the party who might and ought to have alleged it. 2. Between the same parties: ‘The second essential condition to constitute the bar of res Judicata is that the former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim. Res Judicata not only affects the parties to the suit but their privies, ic, persons claiming under them. A judgment not inter parties or in rem is not res Judicata in a subsequent suit though it may be received in evidence. Resjudicata not only affects the parties to the suit but also persons claiming under them (privies). Pro Forma defendant: Proforma defendant: in a suit would ordinarily be as much bound by the decision therein as any other defendant. : **Sethurama Iyer vs Ramachandra Iyer Resjudicata applies between co plaintiffs and co defendants. *Bharat Chandra das v. Pranpopal Chandra das. > Two conflicting decrees passed by the two competent Courts on the same subject matter. Subsequent decision was hit by section 11 and decree being a nullity. “Nathai vs Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad8 DExparte decrees will operate as resjudicata if a party in spite of service of notice on him, did not put in his appearance to contest the suit / appeal as the case may be. A pro forma defendant in a suit would ordinarily be as much bound by the decision therein as any other defendant. But where in the former suit, no relief was claimed against him and the nature of two suits is wholly dissimilar and the cause of action arose only in consequence of the decision in the first suit, the second suit is not barred. To the same effect are the observations in yet another case that a party unnecessarily impleaded in the previous suit is not bound by a decree therein. A party may be joined as a defendant in a suit merely because his presence is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit. In such a case no relief is sought against him and the matter in issue in the suit is not in issue between him and any other party. A decision in such a suit cannot be res judicata against him or his representative-in-interests in subsequent proceedings. Res judicata between co-defendants: The principle of res judicata also applies to parties arrayed on the same side as between plaintiff's themselves or between defendants themselves. It was observed in Cottingham v. Earl of Shroswbury (3 Hare, 627 at 638) as far back as in the year 1843 that “if 4 plaintiff cannot get at his right without trying and deciding a case between co-defendants, the Court will try and decide the case, and the co-defendants will be bound. But if the relief given to the plaintiffs does not require or involve a decision of any case between co-defendants, the co-defendants will not be bound as between each other by any proceeding which may be necessary only to the decree the plaintiff obtains.” The above observations were in answer to the question as to when can a matter be res judicata between co-defendants. Three things emerge from the dictum laid down in the case cited above when the doctrine of res judicata can be applied as between co-defendants, viz., (@) There must be a conflict of interest between co-defendants; (b) It must be necessary to decide that conflict in order to give the plaintiff appropriate relief; and (©) There must be a decision of the question between the co-defendants. (@) The co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit. The doctrine of res judicata as between parties who have been co-defendants in a previous suit may apply even though the party, against whom it is sought to be enforced, did not in the previous suit think fit to enter an appearance and contest the question. But to this the qualification must be added that, if such a party is to be bound by a previous judgment, it must be proved clearly that he had or must be deemed to have had notice that the relevant question was in issue and would have to be decided.19 It is settled by a large number of decisions that for a judgment to operate as res judicata between or among co-defendants, it is necessary to establish: (1) that there was a conflict between co-defendants; (2) that it was necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the relief which the plaintiff claimed in the suit; and (3) that the Court actually decided the question, In *Chandu Lai v. Khalilur Rahman, Lord Simonds said: “It may be added that the doctrine may apply even though the party against whom itis sought to enforce it, did not in the previous suit think fit to enter an appearance and contest the ‘question. But to this the qualification must be added that, if such party is to be bound by a previous judgment, it must be proved clearly that he had or must be deemed to have had notice that the relevant question was in issue and would have to be decided.” In *Iftikhar Ahmad v. Syed Meharban Ali (dead) through Lrs. and others Their lordships of the Supreme Court observed in that they saw no reason why a previous decision should not operate as res judicata between co-plaintifis if all these conditions are mutatis mutandis satisfied. In *Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramanandan Prasad Narayan Singh, In considering any question of res judicata they have to bear in mind the statement of the Board the rule of res judicata “while founded on ancient precedent is dictated by a wisdom which is for all time” and that the application of the rule by the Courts should be influenced by no technical considerations of form, but by matter of substance within the limits allowed by law. “The raison d’etre of the rule is to confer finality on decisions arrived at by competent Courts between interested parties after genuine contest; and to allow persons who had deliberately chosen a position to reprobate it and to blow hot now when they were blowing cold before ‘would be completely to ignore the whole foundation of the rule.” That a decision operates as res judicata between co-defendants if certain conditions are fulfilled is well settled. These conditions are: 1. That there was a conflict of interest between the defendants; 2. That it must be necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims; and 3. That the question between the defendants must have been finally decided and 4, The co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit: Munnia Bibi v. Triloki Nath, AIR 1931 PC 112, Kishun Prasad v. Durga Prasad, AIR 1931 PC 231, Dhan Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, AIR 1973 All. 283, and Iftikhar Ahmad v. Syed Meharban Ali, AIR 1974 SC 749.” The law which applies to a case of co-defendants equally applies to a case of co-plaintifis. The doctrine should, however, be applied to co-defendants with great caution.Fraud or Collusion: The reason for care and caution is fraud or collusion. The principle of res judicata is not applicable where signs of fraud or collusion are transparently pregnant or apparent from the facts on record and matter can be reopened. Under section 11, C:P.C., when the matter has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claimed, litigating under the same title, the decree in the former suit would be res judicata between the plaintiff and the defendant or as between the co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. But for application of this doctrine between co-defendants, four conditions must be satisfied, namely, that (1) there must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the reliefs which the plaintiff claims; (3) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided; and (4) the co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit. If a plaintiff cannot get at his right without trying and deciding a case between co- defendants, the Court will try and decide the case, and the co-defendants will be bound by the decree. But if the relief given to the plaintiff does not require or involve decision of any case between co-defendants, the co-defendants will not be bound as between each other. Where the above four conditions did not exist the decree does not operate as res judicata. It must, therefore, be that all the persons who have right, title and interest are made Parties to the suit and that they should have knowledge that the right, title and interest would be in adjudication and the finding or the decree therein would operate as res judicata to their right, title and interest in the subject-matter of the former suit. Even in their absence a decree could be passed and it may be used as an evidence of the plaintiff's title either accepted or negative therein. The doctrine of res judicata would apply even though the party against whom it is sought to be enforced, was not conomine made a party nor entered appearance nor did he contest the question. The doctrine of res judicata must, however, be applied to co-defendants with great ccare and caution. The reason is that fraud is an extrinsic collateral act, which vitiates the most solemn proceedings of Courts of justice. If a party obtains a decree from the Court by practising fraud or collusion, he cannot be allowed to say that the’ matter is res judicata and cannot be reopened. There can be no question of res judicata in a case where signs of fraud or collusion are transparently pregnant or apparent from the facts on record. In the previous suit which was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of sale price an issue was framed on the status of the defendants as to whether they were the tenants of the land in suit under the plaintiffs but in the subsequent suit for recovery of possession this issue was not raised as the defendants in the subsequent suit did not plead that they were the tenants under the plaintiffs. ‘What they pleaded was that they were in possession since a long time and had, therefore, acquired title by adverse possession. Consequently, in the subsequent suit, the issuea which was raised and tried in the previous suit was not raised, framed or tried and no finding, therefore, came to be recorded as to whether the defendants were tenants of the land in suit. Itis true that the instant suit, which is the subsequent suit, is between the same parties who had litigated in the previous suit and it is also true that the subject-matter of this suit, namely, the disputed land, is the same as was involved in the previous suit but the issues and causes of action were different. Consequently, the basic requirement for the applicability of the rule of res judicata is waiting and, therefore, in the absence of pleadings, in the absence of issues and in the absence of any finding, it is not open to the defendants to invoke the rule of res judicata on the ground that in the earlier suit it was found by the trial Court that they were the tenants of the land in dispute under the plaintiffs. Res judicata between co-plaintifts: The same conditions as apply to the case of co-defendants for constituting res judicata between them also apply to the case of co-plaintiffs. {A finding to become res judicata as between co-plaintiffs must have been essential for giving relief against the defendant. It must be also on points actively contested between the co-plaintffs. But where in the prior suit it was not necessary to decide the rights of the plaintiff inter se for granting relief as against the defendants and the later suit relates to the individual right of one of the original plaintiffs, the prior decision will not operate as res judicata, It is well settled that unless there is an active contest between the parties arrayed on the same side in the previous suit, a decision with regard” to which contest is necessary for the final determination of the matter in controversy in the suit, any decision given in the previous suit cannot operate as res judicata between them or between parties claiming through or under them in any suit. Representative Suit: Explanation VII to section 11 says that where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to claim under the person so litigating. It thus refers to cases in which a decision in a suit may operate as res Judicata against persons not expressly named as parties to the suit, ic. in a representative suit. Explanation V1 to section 11 is, however, not limited only to a representative suit governed by Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. It applied in other suits also. Explanation VI is not controlled by the provisions of Order J, Rule 8, C.P.C., because there must be a suit in which a person claims a right in common to himself and others, though not governed by Order I, Rule 8 CPC. If the parties in the subsequent suit can be said to have been represented by the parties in the former suit, the decision in the former suit will bind the parties in the subsequent suit. A decree passed against a shebait or a trustee will also bind his successor.2 Dismissal of a suit brought by the managing member of a joint family is a bar to a subsequent suit by a junior member who had been pro forma defendant in the former suit, in respect of the same property and on the same cause of action. The son is bound by the decision against the father. In *Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh D Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 was dismissed. Again another writ was filed under Article 32. Dismissed w/s 11- resjudicata. Illustrations: A filed a suit against B for declaration that he is entitled to certain land as heirs of C dismissed- claiming same property under adverse possession based by constructive resjudicata, ‘A’ filed against ‘B’ to recover money on a promissory note B contended obtained by undue influence. Objection overruled and suit is decreed. B cannot challenge the pro-note on coercion / undue influence ought to have taken in former suit. * Management of Sonepat Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh, AIR 2005 SC1050. The principle of res judicata is a procedural provision. A jurisdictional question if wrongly decided would not attract the principles of res judicata. When an order is passed without jurisdiction, the same becomes a nullity. When an order is a nullity, it cannot be supported by invoking procedural principle. ‘* Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, AIR 2005 SC 626. ‘There is a distinction between issue estoppel and res judicata. Res judicata debars a Court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained finality whereas the doctrine of issue estoppel is invoked against the party. If such issue is decided against him, he would be estopped from raising the same in the latter proceedings. The doctrine of res judicata creates a different kind of estoppel viz. estoppel by Accord. ** Sumer Mal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000 Raj 1. First writ petition filed on the ground of apprehended bias and subsequent second petition was filed on allegations of actual bias, is not barred by res judicata; G.N. Nayak v. Goa University, AIR 2002 SC 790. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no doubt some technical aspects for instance the rule of constructive res judicata may be said to be technical but the basis of which the said rule rests is founded on the consideration of public policy. * Smt. Rehana Parveen v. Naimuddin, AIR 2000 MP 1. The technical principle of res judicata would not be operative more so, if substantial change in circumstances is averred and found prima facie justified. * Harbhagwan v. Smt. Punni Devi, AIR 1999 P&H 223 ‘Assuming, the cause of action in both the suits was based upon title in the suit land and was akin in all the cases, yet, as referred to above, in as much the earlier two suits were23 dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file fresh on the same cause of action, third suit will not be barred by any principle of law. * Singhai Lal Chand Jain v. Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, Panna, JT 1996(3) SC 64. Where the Sangh has been duly represented in the previous Court proceedings and were litigating bonafide which resulted in failure cannot be allowed to lay any objection in execution or to plead nullity of decree hence doctrine of res judicata applies. The decree of ejectment will bind every member of Sangh. Consent and compromise decrees: Section 11 is not strictly applicable to compromise decrees as it applies in terms only to what has been heard and finally decided by the Court [estoppel would apply). ‘A consent decree does not operate as resjudicata because it is merely the record of a contract between the parties to a suit, to which is super added for seal of the Court. Dismissal for default: ‘These has been no decision on the merits of the case and no matter in issue has been heard and finally decided within the meaning of section 11. *Bahir Dal Pal vs Grish Chandra Pal ‘A suit dismissed by the trial Court for default or for want of jurisdiction does not operate as. resjudicata in a subsequent suit. Obiter dictum: a mere opinion of the Court on a matter not necessary for the decision of the out of the issues before it is an obiter dictum. Cannot said to be a decision of any issue not resjudicata. “Narinder Singh vs Khaliq-ur-Rahman *Mst Lakhidebi Gupta vs state of Assam It is the decision to operate as R and not the reason. 4, Competency of Court to try the subsequent suit: ‘The fourth condition ig that the Court which decided the former suit must have been a Court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised. ‘The decisions of the Courts of limited jurisdiction shall in so far as such decisions are within the competence of the Courts of limited jurisdiction, operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit although the Court of limited jurisdiction may not be competent to try such subsequent which such question is subsequently raised.24 Competent Court—Territorial Jurisdiction: Territorial jurisdiction is not included in the expression ‘Court competent to try subsequent suit." Court deciding former suit need not have terrtotial jurisdiction to try subsequent suit. Any other construction runs against the trend in the development of laws in this field, A revenue Court decision on a question of ttle will not bar a suit in the ordinary civil Courts, unless otherwise provided by law. A finding of a criminal Court also does not bind the civil Court, The section initially applied only when the Court whose decision is cited as res judicata was competent to try the second gase. The expression “competent to try” means competent to try the subsequent suit if brought ‘at the time the first suit-was brought. Competency relates both to pecuniary jurisdiction and subject-matter, which must be concurrent. It has no reference to territorial jurisdiction. Where property in two suits is identical, the mere fact that its value has risen in the interval between the two suits and the subsequent suit is, therefore, beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the former Court, caninot affect the question of tes judicata, In order to determine whether a Court which decided the former suit has jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit, regard must be had to the jurisdiction of that Court at the date of the former suit and not to its jurisdiction at the date of the subsequent suit. 5. Heard and finally decided by the Court in the first suit: The last condition is that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by'the Court in the first suit. The section requires that there should be a final decision on which the Court has exercised its judicial mind, A matter will be said to have been heard and finally decided notwithstanding that the former suit was disposed of ex parte or by dismissal under Order XVII, Rule 3, i.e, for failure to produce evidence when time was allowed to do so, or by a decree of an award or by dismissal owing to plaintiff's failure to adduce evidertce at the hearing. But it is necessary, that the decision in the former suit must have been on the merits and so the matter cannot be said to have been heard and finally decided when the formet suit was dismissed by the trial Court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of plaintiff's appearance, or on the “ground of non-joinder. or. misjoinder of parties, on account of multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letters of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional Court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of a cause of action, or on the ground of limitation, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal i confirmed in appeal (if any), the décision not being onthe merits would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit.25 PLACE OF SUING: SECTIONS 15-25 Sec15: suit must be instituted at the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. The object of the section is to see that the Courts of higher grade shall not be over burdened with suits. But the Decree passed by a Court of a higher grade cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, “Nidhi lal vs Mazhar Mode of valuation: : Plaintiff only valuates the plaint. If plaintiff values the suit as Rs.10,000/- and if it is finally decided to be 15,000/ which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Cour, the Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to pass a decree. Power & duty of Court: Normally, Court accepts the valuation of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff deliberately undervalues or overvalues the claim for the purpose of choosing the forum, itis the duty of the Court to retum it to be filed in the proper Court. *Balgonda vs Ramgonda Court may require the plaintiff to prove that the valuation is proper. *Commercial Aviation and Travel Co vs Vimla Pannalal if the Cour is unable to come to a finding regarding the correct valuation the Court has to accept the valuation of the plaintiff. Territorial jurisdiction 1. Immovable property [secs 16-18] 2. Movable property [sec 19] 3. Compensation for wrong 4. Other suits (sec 20] Section 17: if the property situate within jurisdiction of more than one Court, it can be filed before any Court provided within the pecuniary jurisdiction, Section 18: If it is not possible to confirm the certainly of jurisdiction then one of these Courts may after recording the statement proceed to entertain and dispose of the suit. Section 19: movable property: “Mobilia sequntur personam” - means “movables follow the person”. As far as the suit is related to the movable property it is at the option of the plaintiff to choose any of the following places viz26 1. Where wrong is committed 2. Where the defendant resides 3. Where the Defendant carries on business/ personally works for gain. It the wrong consists of series of acts or number of transactions, it can be filed before any Court as the plaintiff chooses to sue. It the wrong is done in one place and consequences in another place, itis the option of the plaintiff to choose. Suit for compensation for wrongs -sec 18: Section 19 deals with other suits i.e. cases not covered under previous Sections. In such cases itis the option of the plaintiff that 1. Where cause of action arose wholly / partly arises 2. Where the defendant resides or personally works for gain 3. If there are more than one defendant any of them resides or carryon business. “Bx dolo malo non oritur action” ~means “an agreement to oust absolutely the jurisdiction of a competent Court is void, being against public policy”. ‘*Patel Roadways Ltd Vs Prasad Trading Co > When two or more Courts have jurisdiction, the suit can be filed before any one of such Courts and it is binding and enforceable. Objection as To Jurisdiction: Section 21:- Decree of Court without jurisdiction is nullity ‘*Hiralal vs Kali Nath DIE objection is merely technical, unless raised at the earliest possible opportunity, they will not be entertained in appeaVrevision for the first time. Section 21-A bar of suit: (inserted by amend act 1976): No substantive suit can be filed set aside a decree passed by a Court on an objection as to the place of suing. INSTITUTION OF SUIT: ORDER I Sections 26-35B and orders | to 20 (procedures relating to suits) Orders | &2 parties to suit & frame of suit “Suit” mans any proceeding-by one person(s) against another or others in a Court of law wherein the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law afford him for the reduces of any injury or the enforcement of a set whether at law or in equity. **Krishnappa vs shivappaa Essentials of a sui 1, opposing parties 2. subject matter in dispute 3. cause of action 4, relief Institution of Suit (order 4- sec 26) sections 26, 2(16), 04 RI ‘> Every suit must be instituted by presentation of plaint in duplicate by the plaintiff or recognized agent or person duly authorized by him. *Ram Gopal vs Ram Sarup *Din Ram vs Hari Das Generally, presentation of plaint must be on a working day and during office hours. ‘Thereafier entered in register of civil suits then scrutinized by stamp reporter. If defects, plaintiff/advocate can remove them, Thereafter the suit shall be renumbered. Parties to suit order I: Joinder of parties: the question of joinder of parties arises only when an act is done by two or ‘more persons or it affects two/more persons. OLR1 joinder of plaint 2 conditions are satisfied. 3: all persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs if the following 1. The right to relief alleged to exist in cach plaintiff arises out of the same act or transaction and 2. The case is of such nature, if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. In *Krishna vs Narsinghrao, it was held that both the conditions should be fulfilled. Rule 3:- who may be joined as defendants? Illustrations: if ‘A’ entered into contract separately with B, C, D for supply of goods, they are not joinder of defendants. Rules 2 & 3-A:- where it appears to the Court that any joinder of plaintiffs or defendants ‘may embarrass or delay the tral, it may pass an order for separate trials, Necessary & Proper Partes: *Ramesh vs Municipal Corp, of Bombay > Necessary Party is one whose presence is indispensable to the constitution of the suit, against whom the relief is sought and without whom no effective order can be passed. Proper28 Party is one whose absence an effective order can be passed, but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. In the absence of necessary party no decree can be passed. But in the absence of the proper party decree can be passed (his presence enables the Court to adjudicate more effectually and completely). Example: in a partition suit by son against the father, all sharers are necessary parties and grandsons are proper parties. Rule 9: Non Joinder or Mis-Joinder of Parties: ‘A person who is either a necessary or a proper party to a suit if not been joined as a party to the suit is known as non-joinder. Mis joinder: if two / more persons are joined as plaintiffs/ defendants in contravention of O1 RI and 3 and they are neither necessary nor proper parties. “Jaganath vs Jaswant Singh > A suit cannot be dismissed only on the ground of mis joinder or non joinder of parties. However, this rule does not apply in case of non joinder of necessary party. ‘*Naba kumar vs radha shyam > If the person who is likely to be affected by the decree is not joined as a party in a suit/ appeal the suit or appeal is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Rule13: All objections as to non joinder or mis joinder of parties must be taken at the earliest ‘opportunity, else they will be deemed to have been waived. Rule10: striking out, addition and substitution of parties: test:= not whether the plaintiff agrees or objects the addition of parties but whether the presence of such party is required for full and complete adjudication of the dispute. Representative Suit: Order I Rule &: ‘When number of person have similar interest in a suit, one or more of them can sue or be sued on behalf of themselves and others with the permission of the Court or upon a direction from the Court In *Srinivasa vs Raghava, It was held that the object of the provision is to save the time and” expense to ensure a single comprehensive trial of question in which numerous persons are interested to avoid multiplicity of suits. TN housing Board vs Ganapathy > Provisions should be contented liberally. To apply the rule, following conditions must exist.29 Parties must be numerous ‘Must have same interest in the suit Permission must have been granted / direction must have been given by the Court. Notice must have been issued to the parties whom it is proposed to represent in the suit. aepr According to Order 23 Rule 3-B no agreement or compromise can be entered in a representative suit without the leave of the Court because it would affect the interest of the other parties. If personal notice is not possible, publication in news paper can be done to the parties concerned at the expense of the plai As far a8 applicability of Resjudicata to representative suit, Explanation VI of sec 11 deals with representative suit. And where a representative suit has been decided such decision would operate as resjudicata, ORDER 2: FRAME OF SUIT ‘The object of the provision is that as far as possible all matters in dispute between the parties relating to the same transaction should be disposed of in the same suit. Where there is ‘common question of law and fact, separate suits are neither necessary nor desirable. And the defendants should not be vexed twice for the same cause. Order II Rule 2 shall be applicable only to the suits and not to appeals. 2 RI every suit must include the whole of the plaintiffs claim in respect of the cause of action. O2R2 where the plaintiff omits to sue for or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, afterwards he shall not be allowed to sue in respect of such portion so omitted or relinquished. The provision compels a plaintiff to include in his suit the whole of the claim arising out of the cause of action. They do not compel him to join in the same suit every cause of action or every claim which he has, Bar of subsequent suit under Order II rule 2 will not be applicable if the identity of cause of action in the previous suit and the subsequent suit is not established. Eg: where previous suit for recovery of sale price was filed, the subsequent suit for recovery of possession of ground that they were owners is not barred under Order IT Rule 2 as the cause of action in the subsequent suit was different and distinct. Omission to sue for all reliefs: When a person is entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action, he may sue for all the reliefs or he may sue for one or more of them and reserve his rights with the leave of the Court to sue for the rest. If no such leave is obtained he will be precluded from after wards suing for any relief so omitted. But ifthe right to relief in respect of which a further suit is brought did not exist at the date-of the institution of the former suit, the subsequent suit is not barred. Exception to the rule of splitting of claims:- 1, Order II Rule 2 does not apply to application for execution. An application for partial execution is not a bar to subsequent application for execution of the rest of the decree.2, Where a mortgage has obtained a decree for the payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage, he shall not be entitled to. bring the mortgaged property to sale otherwise than by institution a sit for sale in enforcement of the mortgage, and he may institute such suit notwithstanding anything contained in Order MRole2, 3. Failure to claim set off is no bar to.a subsequent suit. 4. The bar of Order II Rule 2, CPC May not apply to a petition for a high prerogative writ under Article 226 of the constitution. In *sohan raj vs Mahendra Singh, held that not applicable to execution proceedings *K.V.George vs Water and Power Dept > Not applicable to arbitration proceedings * Devendra vs State of Uttar Pradesh > Not applicable to petition under Article 226. Joinder of cause of action: rules 3- 6: ‘A plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such ‘causes of action in the same suit. (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit. Enables joinder of several cause of action in one suit in the following: 1. One plaintiff, one defendant, several cause of action 2. Joinder of plaintiffs (two or more plaintiffs), several cause of action conditions, (@)cause of action must have arisen from same act or transaction. (b) Common question of law / fact must have been involved. 3. Joinder of defendants and cause of action (a)cause of action must have arisen from same act or transaction. (b) Common question of law / fact must have been involved. 4, Joinder of plaintiffs, defendants and cause of action 5. If plaintiffs are not jointly interested mis joinder suit bad if defendants not jointly interested R7 objections as to mis joinder of cause of action must be taken at the earliest opportunity otherwise deemed to have been waived.aL UNIT-I PLEADINGS AND TRIAL PLEADINGS - ORDER VI: Pleading is defined as plaint or written statement. “Mogha’ definition - “Pleadings are statements in writitig drawn up and filed by each party to a case, stating what are his contentions will be at the trial and giving all such details as his ‘opponent needs to be known in order to prepare his answer”, Object of pleadings is to narrow down the area of conflict and to see where the two sides differ and to prevent miscarriage of justice. In *Ganesh Trading Co.v. Moji Ram it was held that the object are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other, to enable Court to determine what is really at essence ‘between parties and to prevent deviation from the course whichy litigation on particular cause of action must take: Rule 2 Basic rule of pleadings (GOLDEN RULES) 1. Should state facts and not law In *Kedar Lal v. Hari Lal Te was held it is the duty of the parties to state only the facts on which they rely upon for their claims and it isthe duty of the Court to apply the law. 2. Facts stated should be material facts: Material facts: all facts which the plaintiffs cause of action or the defendants defence depends. ‘*Ramachandran v. Janakiraman > Material facts are primary and basic facts which must be pleaded by the party in support of the case. To identify a particular fact is a material fact or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, 3. Pleadings should not state evidence: ‘The third principle of pleadings is that the evidence of facts, as distinguished from the facts themselves, need not be pleaded. In other words, the pleadings should contain a statement of ‘material facts on which the party relies but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. *Sheshadri vs. Pai32 > The pleadings should contain a statement of material facts on which the party relies but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. : Facts are of two types: (a) Facta Probanda- the facts required to be proved (material facts) and (b) Facta Probantia — the facts by means of which they are to be proved (particulars or evidence). ‘The pleadings should contain only facta probanda and not facta probantia. The material facts ‘on which the plaintiff relies for his claim or the defendant relies for his defence are called facta probanda and they must be stated in the plaint or in the written statement, as he case may be. But the facts or evidence by means of which the material facts are to be proved are called facta probantia and need not be stated in the pleadings. They are not the “fact in issue”, but only relevant facts required to be proved at the trial in order to establish the fact in issue. 4, Facts should be stated in concise form: The fourth and the last general principles of pleadings is that he pleadings should be drafted with sufficient brevity and precision, The material facts should be stated precisely succinctly and coherently. The words “in a concise form” are definitely suggestive of the fact that brevity should be adhered to while drafting pleadings. It has been uniformly held that pleadings in India should not be construed very strictly. They have to be interpreted liberally and regard must be had to the substance of the matter than the form thereof, q Amendment of pleadings: - Rules 17 to 18 ‘Amendment of pleadings is basically for the purpose of bringing about final adjudication in a suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is in the interest of justice that a suit shall be decided on all points of controversy and accordingly, it is needed that the party shall be allowed to alter or amend their pleadings during the pendency of the suit. There can be'a situation where there is change of circumstances in the course of pendency of a proceeding and if a matter in issue arises upon such change of circumstance, then amendment becomes necessary. Amendment of pleadings is provided under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under: According to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court may allow the amendment at any stage of the proceedings and for such purpose it may impose conditions i.e. in the form of cost or any other condition. The Court has been given discretion in this regard and the mandatory guidelines upon the Court as well as upon the party seeking amendment is that they shall make only such amendments which are necessary for determination of real controversy between the parties to the suit. At the same time, the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 puts a mandate upon the Court not to allow such amendment after the trail has begun (i.e. if issues have been settled), if its finds that the party could have raised the pleadings by due diligence at an earlier point of time. However, the Proviso need not be given a very rigid effect in all cases as the same is subject to the discretion of the Court. The main object of the legislation is to enable the Court to33 allow amendment at any stage. The purpose of the Proviso cannot do away with the intent of the legislation. Thus, if an application for amendment of pleadings has been filed after trial thas begun, the Court will normally be tilted against the applicant, if it could be raised by due diligence at any earlier stage of proceedings. But in proper cases if the point to be amended is very essential to the suit, the Court may, in the interest of justice and equity, allow the amendment on such conditions as the Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Case', that by the 2002 Amendment, which added the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17, the burden of proof has been shifted upon the applicant who makes the application for amendment after the trail has ‘commenced, to prove that despite due diligence he could not have raised the issue before the commencement of trail. This is for the purpose of preventing frivolous application to delay the proceedings. PLAINT: ORDER VII Rule 1. Particulars to be contained in plaint: ‘The plaint shall contain the following particulars :- (@) the name of the Court in which the suit is brought; (b) the name, description and place of residence of the plainti (©) the name, description and place of residence of the defendant, so far as they can be ascertained; (@ where the plaintiff or the defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a statement to that effect; (©) the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose; (O the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction; (g) the relief which the plaintiff claims; (h) where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the ‘amount so allowed or relinquished; and (i) a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of court-fees, so far as the case admits. Rule 2: In money suits ‘Where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint shall state the precise amount claimed. But where the plaintiff sues for mesne profits, or for an amount which will be found due to him on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, or for movables in the possession of the defendant, or for debts of which the value he cannot,34 after the exercise of reasonable diligence, estimate, the plaint shall state approximately the amount or value sued for. Rule 3. Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property: Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. Rule 4: When plaintiff sues in representative character the plaint shall show not only that he has an actual existing interest in the subject-matter, but that he has taken the steps (if any) necessary to enable him to institute a suit concerning it. Rule 5: Defendant's interest and liability to be shown - The plaint shall show that the defendant is or claims to be interested in subject-matter, and that he is liable to be called upon to answer the plaintiff's demand. Rule 6: Grounds of exemption from limitation law Where the suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed. Provided that the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of limitation on any ground not set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint. Rule 7. Relief to be specially- Every Plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent a if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement. Rule 8, Relief founded on separate grounds Where the plaintiff seek relief in respect of several distinct claims or causes of action founded upon separate and distinct grounds, they shall be stated as far as may be separately and distinctly. Rule 9. Procedure on admitting plaint- Concise statements- (1) The plaintiff shall endorse on the plaint, or annex thereto, a list of the documents (if any) which he has produced along with it; and, if the plaint is admitted, shall present, within such time as may be fixed by the Court or extended by it from time to time, as many copies] on plain paper of the plaint as there are defendants, unless the Court by reason of the length of the plaint or the number of the defendants, or for any other sufficient reason, permits him to present a like number of concise statements of the nature of the claim made, or of the relief claimed in the suit, in which case he shall present such statements.35, (1A) The plaintiff shall, within the time fixed by the Court or extended by it under sub-rule (1), pay the requisite fee for the service of summons on the defendants.) (2) Where the plaintiff sues, or the defendant or any of the defendants is sued, in a representative capacity, such statements shall show in what capacity the plaintiff or defendant sues or is sued. (3) The plaintiff may, by leave of the Court, amend such statements so as to make them correspond with the plaint. (4) The chief ministerial officer of the Court shall sign such list and copies or statements if, on examination, he finds them to be correct. Rule 10: Return of plaint At any stage of the suit be returned to be: presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Procedure on returning plaint- On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. Rule 10A: Power of Court to fix a date of appearance in the Court where plaint is to be filed after its return (1) Where, in any suit, after the defendant has appeared, the Court is of opinion that the plaint should be retumed, it shall, before doing so, intimate its decision to the plaintiff. (2) Where an intimation is given to the plaintiff under sub-rule (1), the plaintiff may make an application to the Court- (@) specifying the Court in which he proposes to present the plaint after its return, (b) praying that the Court may fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the said ‘Court, and (©) requesting that the notice of the date so fixed may be given to him and to the defendant. (3) Where an application is made by the plaintiff under sub-rule (2), the Court shall, before returning the plaint and notwithstanding that the order for return of plaint was made by it on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit,- (@) fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is proposed to be presented, and (®) give to the plaintiff and to the defendant notice of such date for appearance. (4) Where the notice of the date for appearances is given under sub-rule (3),-36 (@) it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is presented after its return, to serve the defendant with a summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise direct, and (®) the said notice shall be deemed to be a summons for the appearance of the defendant in the Court in which the plaint is presented on the date so fixed by the Court by which the plaint was retumed. (8) Where the application made by the plaintiff under sub-rule (2) is allowed by the Court, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to appeal against the order returning the plaint. Rule 10B. Power of appellate Court to transfer suit to the proper Court (1) Where, on an appeal against an order for the return of plaint, the Court hearing the appeal confirms such order, the Court of appeal may, if the plaintiff by an application so desires, while returning the plaint, direct plaintiff to file the plaint, subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), in the Court in which the suit should have been instituted, (whether such Court is within or without the State in which the Court hearing the appeal is situated), and fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is directed to be filed and when the date is so fixed it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is filed to serve the defendant with the summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court in which the plaint is filed, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs. (2) The direction made by the Court under sub-rule (1) shall be without any prejudice to the rights of the parties to question the jurisdiction of the Court, in which the plaint is filed, to try the suit] Rule 11: Rejection of plaint The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action * Abdulla v. Gallappa (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so *Meenakshi Sundaram v. Venkatachalam (©) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is retumed upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so *Mannan Lal v. Chhotaka Bibi -- if paid within specified time the plaint shall be treated as instituted from the date of its presentation. (@) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law37 R Sinha v. State of Madhya Pradesh In *Gangappa v. Rachawwa it was held that if the plaint itself shows that the claim is barred by limitation it shall be rejected. Rule 12. Procedure on rejecting plaint Where a plaint is rejected the Judge shall record an order to that effect with the reasons for such order. Rule 13, Where rejection of plaint does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. Documents relied on in plaint Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. (2) List of other documents -Where he relies on any other documents (whether in his Possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. Rule 15: Statement in case of documents not in plaintiff's possession or power Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, if possible, state in whose possession or power itis. Rule 16: Suits on lost negotiable instruments ‘Where the suit is founded upon a negotiable instrument, and it is proved that the instrument is lost, and an indemnity is given by the plaintiff, to the satisfaction of the Court, against the claims of any other person upon such instrument, the Court may pass such decree as it would have passed if the plaintiff had produced the instrument in Court when the plaint was presented, and had at the same time delivered a copy of the instrument to be filed with the plaint. WRITTEN STATEMENT: ORDER VIII A Written Statement is a pleading of the defendant for submission of every material fact to answer the allegation made by the plaintiff in his plaint. The word has not been defined in the code, but the same may be defined as under: “A Written Statement is the pleading of the defendant wherein he deals with every material fact alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint and also states any new facts in his favour or takes legal objections against the claim of the plaintiff”.Preparation of Written Statement: All relevant rules of pleading apply to a Written Statement and it should be prepared with great caution. In the Written Statement firstly, the defendant should mention the name of the Court trying the suit, then-Ithe names of the parties. It is not necessary to mention the names, directions and place of residence of all the parties in the title of the Written Statement, but mentioning the name of the Ist plaintiff and ‘Ist defendant is enough. The number of suit may be mentioned thereafter. The defendant thereupon replies to each para of the plaint except where any preliminary objections like maintainability of suit locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit, the non- joinder or mis-joinder of parties as to the jurisdiction of the Court or as to limitation, for consideration which is necessary in the Ist instance before the suit is tried on merits. Rules of Defence: The denial in a Written Statement must be specific and not general. The grounds alleged by the plaintiff must be denied by a defendant specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages. The denial should not be vague or evasive. Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken 0 be admitted except as regards a person under disabi In cases where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts in the plaint except as against a person under disability, but the Court, in its discretion, may require any such fact to be proved. Whenever a judgment is pronounced under Rule 2, decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment. ‘Time to File Written Statement: The defendant shall file his Written Statement of his defence within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him, but the above time may bbe extended by the Court further for a period, which shall not be later than 90 Days from the date of service of summons. Extension of time to Present Written Statement: Ordinarily the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 has to be honoured. The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the Court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension of time shall be only by way of exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing, how so ever brief they may be, by the Court. ‘Subsequent Pleadings: According to Order VIII, Rule 9, no pleading subsequent to the ‘Written Statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counter - claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court, but the Court may, at any time require a Written Statement or additional Written Statement from any of the parties and fix a time of ‘not more than 30 days for presenting the same. Failure to present Written Statement: Where a party fails to file a Written Statement as required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 within a time permitted or fixed by the Court, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order as it thinks fit and on such judgment a decree shail be drawn up. The provisions regarding duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him have been given in Order VIII, Rule 1-A.Concept of set off, Equitable Set off and Counter Claim (Order VIII, Rule 6) Set Off Order 8, Rule 6 deals with set off which is a reciprocal discharge of debts between the plaintiff and he defendant. It has the effect of extinguishing the plaintiff's claim to the extent of the amount claimed by the defendant as a counter claim. Where the defendant's claims to set off against the plaintiff's demand, in a suit for the recovery of money, any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from the plaintiff, the defendant may present a writen statement containing the particulars of the debt sought to be set off. Example: [ R and S sale rice for Rs 25000 to A and M. A sell cloth worth Rs. 28000 to S. A file a suit against S for recovery of price of cloth. S claims set off of the cost of rice in this suit. > 5S will not allow set off - in dealing parties are not jointly same. Conditions: A defendant may claim a set-off, ifthe following conditions are satisfied:- L The suit must be for the recovery of money. IL The sum of money must be ascertained. I, Such sum must be legally recoverable. TV. It must be recoverable by the defendant or by all the defendants, if more than one. V. It must be recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiff or from all plaintiffs than one. VI. It must not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is brought. Both the parties must fill in the defendant's claim to set-off, the same character as they fill in the plaintiff's suit. Equitable set-off: The provision of Rule 6 are not exhaustive. Order VIII, Rule 6 deals with legal set-off while Order XX, Rule 19(3) recognizes an equitable set-off. ‘An equitable set-off may be claimed by the defendant where the defendant claims set off in respect of an unascertained sum of money, where the claim arises of the same transaction and then such set off is known as equitable set off. Generally, the suits emerge from cross demands in the same transaction and this doctrine is intended to save the defendant from having to take recourse to a separate cross suit. Example: A sues B to recover Rs. 25,000/- under a contract, B can claim set-off towards damages sustained by him due to breach of the same contract by A. Counter-Claim (Rules 6-A to 6-G) Meaning: It is a claim made by the defendant in a suit against the plaintiff and can be enforced by a cross action. Counter claim is a cause of action in favour of the defendant against the plaintiff. ‘A counter-claim is a weapon in the hands of a defendant to defeat the relief sought by the plaintiff against him and may be set-up only in respect of a claim for which the defendant can file a separate suit and therefore, itis substantially a cross action. In Laxmidas Vis Nanabbai AIR 1984, ‘SC. it was held that the Court has power to treat the counter claim as a cross suit and hear the original suit and counter claim together if the counter claim is properly stamped.40 a. A defendant may in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter- claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired whether such counter claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. b. Such counter claim shall be the same effect as a cross- suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter claim, ¢. The plaintiff shall be at a liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. 4. The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to the plaints. Rule 6 B: Counter Claim to be stated: Where any defendant seeks to reply upon ground as supporting a right of counter-claim, he shall, in his written statement, state specifically that he does so by way of counterclaim. Rule 6 C: Exclusion of Counter Claim: Where a defendant sets up a counter-claim and the plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter- claim but in an independent suit, the-plaintiff may, at the time before issues are settled in relation to the counter-claim, apply to the Court which may, on the hearing of such an application make such an order as it thinks fit. Rule 6 D: Effect of discontinuance of suit: If in any case in which the defendant sets up a counter claim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counter-claim may nevertheless be proceeded with. Rule 6 E: Default of plaintiff to reply Counter- Claim: If the plaintiff makes default in putting in a reply to the counter claim made by the defendant, the Court may pronounce judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the counter claim made against him, or make such order in relation to the counter claim as it thinks fit. Rule 6 F: Relief to defendant where Counter Claim succeeds: Where in any suit a set-off or counterclaim is established as a defence against the plaintiff's claim and any balance is found due to the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, the Court may give judgment to the party e'ltitled to such balance. Rule 6 G: Rules relating to written statement to apply : The rules relating to a written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter claim. ORDER-V: SUMMONS AND DISCOVERY, ISSUE OF SUMMONS (SECTION 27 TO 2) ‘Summons means an intimation sent to the defendant/witness by the Court ‘Summons To Defendant (Order 5) and To Witnesses (Order 16) Meaning: The word summons has not been defined in the Code, but according to the dictionary meaning; “A summons is a document issued from the office of a court of justice, calling upon the person to whom it is directed to attend before a judge or office of the court for a certain purpose.’ Essentials of summons: Every summons shall be signed by the judge or such officer appointed by him and shall be sealed with the seal of the court (Rulel (3)] and everya summons shall be accompanied by a plaint or if so permitted, by a concise statement thereof {Rule 2] Contents of Valid Summons: a. The summons must contain a direction whether the date fixed is for settlement of issues only or for final disposal of the suit (Rule 5). b. In cases of summons for final disposal of the suit, the defendant shall be directed to produce his witnesses (Rule 8). . The Court must give sufficient time to the defendant to enable him to appear and answer the claim of the Plaintiff on the day fixed (Rule 6). 4. The summons shall contain an order to the defendant to produce all documents in his possession or power upon which he intends to rely on in support of his case (Rule 7). ‘Summons to Defendant: Section 27: Where a suit has been duly instituted, a summon may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and may be served in the manner prescribed on such day not beyond 30 days from the date of the institution of the plaint. Order V: Rule 1 (1) Rule 1(1): When a suit has been duly instituted, a summon may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of the service of the summons on that defendant; Provided that no such summon shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of Plaint and admitted the plaintiffs claim; Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty ways, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later that ninety days from the date of service of summons. Appearance of Defendant (Order V Rule 1 (2)] Rule 1(2) - A defendant to whom a summons has been issued under sub-rule (1) may appear a. in person, or ». by a pleader duly instructed and able to answer all material questions relating to the suit, or ¢. by a pleader accompanied by some person able to answer all such questions. The Court, however, may order the defendant or plaintiff to appear in person (Rule 3). Rule 1 (3): Every such summons shall be signed by the judge or such officer as he appoints, and shall be sealed with the seal of the Court. Exemption from Personal Appearance: Order V Rule 4 ‘No party shall be ordered to appear in person 1. unless he resides 4. within the local limits of the Court's ordinary original jurisdiction, or ». without such limits but at a place less than fifty or (where there is railway or steamer communication or other established public conveyance for five- sixths of the distance between the place where he resides and the place where the Court is situate) less than two hundred miles distance from the Court-house. Or 2. Who is a woman not appearing in person (Section 132), or 3. Who is entitled to exemption under the Code (Section 132). ‘Mode of service of summons: Service of summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer as he appoints in this behalf and sealed with the seal of the court.‘The Code prescribes four principal modes of serving a summons to a defendant: i) Personal or direct service; (Rules 10 to 15 and 18) i) Substituted Service; (Rules 20, 17 and 19) ) Service by Court; (Rule 9) and iv) Service by Plaintiff. (Rule 9-A) 1. Personal or direct service: This is an ordinary mode of service of summons. Under the following categories a service of summons should be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof to the defendant personally or to his agent or other person on his behalf and for the proper service of summons following principles must be remembered- a. Where there are two or more defendants, service of summons should be made on each defendant (Rule 11). b. Wherever itis practicable, the summon must be served to the defendant in person or to his authorized agent (Rule 12). ¢. Ina suit relating to any business or work against a person, not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the court issuing the summons, it may be served to the manager or agent ‘carrying on such business or work (Rule 13). 4. In a suit for immoveable property, if the service of summons cannot be made on the defendant personally and the defendant has no authorized agent, the service may be made on any agent of the defendant in charge of the property (Rulle 14). ce. Where the defendant is absent from his residence atthe time of the service of summons and there is no likelihood of him being found at his residence within a reasonable time and he has. no authorized agent, the summons may be served on any adult male or female member of the defendant's family residing with him (Rule 15). The serving officer (a person to whom the copy is delivered or tendered to serve on the defendant) after making acknowledgment of service of summons must make an endorsement ‘on the original summons stating the time and” manner of service thereof and the name and address of the person, if any, identifying the person served and witnessing the delivery or tender of summons. 2. “Substituted Service” means the service of summons by a mode which is substituted for the ordinary mode of summons. The circumstances for the substituted service are:- a. i) Where the defendant or his agent refused to sign the acknowledgement or ) Where the serving officer, after. due and reasonable diligence cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when the service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of him being found at his residence within a reasonable time and there is no authorized agent nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. ‘The serving officer shall then return the original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating the fact about affixing the copy, the circumstances under which to do so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by ‘whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed (Rule 17). If the Court is satisfied either on the affidavit of the serving officer or on his examination on oath that the summons has been duly served; or may make further enquiry in the matter as it thinks fit, and shall either declare that the summon has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit(Rule19).4a In the second mode as provided by Rule 17, the declaration by the court about the due service of the summons is essential. If the provisions of the Rule 19 have not been complied with, the service of summons cannot be said to be in accordance with law. bb. Where the Court is satisfied that there is a reason to believe that the defendant is avoiding the service of summons or for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order that the service may be effected in the following manner- 1. by affixing a copy of the summons in some conspicuous place in the court house; and also upon some conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant is known to have last sided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or in such manner as the court thinks fit ((Rule 20(1)]; or By an advertisement in the daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually or voluntarily resided, carried on business or Personally worked for gain [(Rule 20(1-A)]. Substituted service Under Rule 20 is as effective as personal service ((Rule 20(2)). 3) By Court: Rule 9 of Order V deals with delivery of summons by Court and states that in cases, where the defendant or his agent, empowered to accept the service of summons, resides within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit was instituted, the summons shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be delivered or sent to the proper officer or to approved courier services to be served on the defendant, Declaration by Court: The Court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant, where a, the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the summons or had refused to accept that summons by any other means specified in sub-rule (3) when tendered or transmitted to him, and b. Where the summons was properly addressed, pre-paid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due, notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgement having been lost or mislaid, or for any other reason, has not been received by the Court within 30 Days from the date of issue of summons. 4) By Plaintiff: In addition to the provisions of rule 9, the Court, on the plaintiffs application. may permit and deliver the summons to such plaintiff for service on the defendant and the provisions of rule 16 and 18 shall apply to a summons personally served under rule 9-A as if, the person effecting service were a serving officer. Service of summons where defendant resides within jurisdiction of another Court: ‘A summons may be sent by the Court by which it is issued, whether within or without the State, either by one of its officers or by post or by such courier service as may be approved by the High Court, by fax message or by Electronic Mail service or by any other ‘means as may be provided by the rules made by the High Courts to any Court (not being the High Court) having jurisdiction in the place where the defendant resides. ‘Where a defendant resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted, and the Court directs that the service of summons on that defendant may be made by such mode of service of summons as is referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 9 (except by registered post acknowledgement due), he provision of rule 21 shall not apply.