Code Of Civil Procedure

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE​ ​Introduction​ ​-​ ​CPC​​is a procedural code, which derives its power​​from the Constitution, Article 14, which talks​ ​about DUE PROCESS.​ ​-​ ​There are two kinds of law - substantive and procedural​ ​-​ ​This distinction is derived from the maxim -​​ubi jus​​ibi remedium​​- where there is a legal right,​ ​there is a legal remedy​ ​-​ ​The law that creates the right is called substantive law​ ​-​ ​The law that aids and protects those rights is called procedural law - course taken for the​ ​execution of the law - prescribes practice, procedure, and machinery.​ ​-​ ​Civil litigation imp legislations - Limitation Act, Court Fees Act, and suit value act​ ​-​ ​Whether a legislation is substantive or procedural is a question of substance over form.​ ​-​ ​Equity provisions, Sec. 17, Order 29, section 151 (wide powers to the HC )​ ​PROCEDURAL LAW​ ​ r.Salmond -​ M ​The law of procedure may be defined as that branch of the law that governs the process​ ​of litigation. It is the law of actions (method which the courts will not digress from); all the residue is​ ​substantive law... Substantive law is concerned with the ends that the administration of justice seeks;​ ​procedural law deals with the means and instruments by which these ends are to be attained... procedural​ ​law is concerned with affairs inside the courts of justice" while "substantive law deals with matters in the​ ​world outside."​ ​-​ ​Summons​ ​-​ ​Pleadings​ ​-​ ​Proof​ ​-​ ​Judgement​ ​-​ ​Execution​ ​Object:​​to consolidate and amend the laws relating​​to the procedure in the court of civil judicature​ ​Interpretation -​​it has to be expeditious, inexpensive,​​and simple; too technical an interpretation that​ ​leaves no room for interpretation should be avoided, because substantive justice should not be defeated by​ ​some mistake, negligence, or infraction of procedural law​ ​Scope -​​the legislature cannot contemplate all the​​future circumstances for the procedure that might arise;​ ​therefore,​​section 151 of CPC provides the court inherent​​power to act according to principles of justice,​ ​equity, and good conscience.​ ​ odule 1: Conceptual Themes Underlying Civil​ M ​Procedure​ ​Session 01: Procedure and Substance​ ​ ubstantive law is inherently procedural because, when conceptualizing substantive law,w there exists an​ S ​assumption as to how it will be enforced; if this conceptualization within the procedural framework is not​ ​done deliberately, it still is present subconsciously because substantive law cannot be imagined without its​ ​procedural aspects.​ ​ his paper has five parts to it​ T ​Part 1 - the origin of the substantive and procedural dichotomy​ ​Part 2 - Doctrinal incoherence in this dichotomy.​ ​Part 3 - Procedure is inherently substantive​ ​-​ ​Because procedure affects the outcome of cases;​ ​-​ ​Procedural reform is a disguise for the reform of substantive law.​ ​Part 4 - Procedure is embedded in substantive law​ ​Part 5 - Every substantive law has its procedural aspect, and to apply any other procedure, it will defeat​ ​the purpose of the substantive law.​ ​Part 1 - origins​ ​-​ ​The dichotomy between substantive and procedural law emerged in the 18th century with​ ​Bentham and Blackstone's different works.​ ​-​ ​This dichotomy only emerged this late because until then it was understood that both the​ ​procedural and substantive laws were ‘inextricably intertwined’ in both law courts and courts of​ ​equity.​ ​-​ ​The substantive law was subsumed within the procedural form.​ ​-​ ​During the 18th century, both the court of equity and the court of law were incorporating parts​ ​from each other → it was discovered that both courts were applying the same principles of​ ​substantive law but with a different procedural aspect and thus ultimately merged; with the​ ​merger, both courts' substantive aspect remained intact while the procedural aspect became​ ​uniform.​ ​-​ ​This was against the backdrop of the Enlightenment, which produced a binarist conception of​ ​ideas like mind/matter, culture/nature, etc.​ ​-​ ​This substantive/procedural binary was taken up by Blackstone in his commentaries, where it was​ ​then adopted by the new emerging state of the USA.​ ​Part 2 -​ ​-​ ​There didn't always exist the line between substantive and procedural laws, but when this binary​ ​came into the formal understanding of law, there was an assumption that a line dividing these two​ ​actually exists; it just needs to be figured out.​ ​-​ ​But this was a wrong assumption because there existed no line between them; it was a decision​ ​taken by the jurist regarding where to draw the line.​ ​Part 3: Procedure as Substance​ ​This section summarizes the familiar concept that "procedure is power"​ ​-​ ​The procedure is inherently substantive for two primary reasons:​ ​-​ ​Outcome Influence: Procedural rules, such as those governing discovery or pleading, are​ ​not neutral; they create "winners and losers"​​by affecting​​the actual outcome of cases -​​IT​ ​ACTUALLY AFFECTS THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE​ ​-​ ​Substantive Reform in Disguise: Procedural changes are often used as a proxy for​ ​substantive reform because substantive law keeps certain assumptions regarding​ ​procedure to implement that substance.​ ​-​ ​For example, modifications to pleading rules or motion practice can be used to bypass the formal​ ​law-making process to undermine or generate substantive rights, particularly in areas like civil​ ​rights and employment discrimination.​ ​Part 4 - Procedure in substance​ ​-​ ​Substantive law is inherently procedural.​ ​-​ ​Substantive law is not "aprocedural" or "trans-procedural"; rather, it is constructed with specific​ ​assumptions about the procedures that will be used to enforce it.​ ​-​ ​If a substantive law is enforced using procedures different from those anticipated by its drafters,​ ​such as moving from a system with broad discovery to one with none, it leads to a "mismatch".​ ​This results in either the over-enforcement or under-enforcement of the intended substantive​ ​mandate.​ ​-​ ​These procedural assumptions are usually "parochial," based on the drafters' own local legal​ ​system, and can be "spectacularly wrong" when that law is applied in a foreign forum with​ ​radically different procedures.​ ​Part 5 - conceptual possibilities​ ​-​ ​Apply Only Forum Law (lex fori)​​: One radical approach​​would be to abandon choice-of-law​ ​doctrines entirely and require a court to apply only its own substantive and procedural laws to​ ​prevent geographic mismatches.​ ​-​ ​Apply All of Foreign Law: Conversely, this approach suggests that when a court applies another​ ​jurisdiction's law, it should apply all of it, both substance and procedure, to maintain the law's​ ​integrity.​ ​-​ ​Normalize Procedure: This would involve harmonizing all procedural systems into a universal​ ​constant, ensuring that the forum's procedure always matches the "embedded" procedure of any​ ​substantive law.​ ​Conlcusion​ ​-​ ​Courts should show greater humility and skepticism about their ability to faithfully apply another​ ​jurisdiction's substantive law.​ ​-​ ​When applying foreign law is necessary, courts should incorporate as much of that foreign law's​ ​procedural context as possible, regardless of labels​ ​-​ ​Procedural conformity efforts should be valued for their ability to protect the integrity of​ ​substantive law.​ ​Session 02: Adversarial Systems v. Inquisitorial Systems​ ​ADVERSARIAL AND INQUISITORIAL MODELS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - JA JOLOWICZ​ ​ he adversarial system treats a trial as a contest between opposing parties, where a passive judge acts as a​ T ​referee. The inquisitorial system features a judge actively investigating facts to uncover objective truth.​ ​Civil litigation is described as "civilization's substitute for vengeance," providing a non-violent "duelling​ ​ground" where parties fight their own corners.​ ​ here is a plausible assumption that the adversarial system developed more than the inquisitorial in the​ T ​primitive society due to the centralization of power.​ ​Although there isn't a purely adversarial or inquisitorial system that exists​ ​-​ ​Inquisitorial - process would require a judge to initiate an inquiry without a complaint, much like​ ​a policeman at a crime scene; in practice, even "inquisitorial" continental systems require a party​ ​to trigger the action​ ​-​ ​Adversarial system: The process assumes a judge can be a mere "umpire" without exercising​ ​subjective judgment, which is practically impossible​ ​-​ ​All procedural systems exist on a spectrum where some are simply "more adversarial" or "more​ ​inquisitorial" than others.​ ​TWO IDEAS CENTRAL TO ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM -​ ​-​ ​Parties have the power to define the subject matter of the dispute - substance of the dispute.​ ​-​ ​The information based on which the judge delivers the decision is fully controlled by the parties,​ ​ie the parties have autonomy over the information supplied to the judge for the resolution of the​ ​dispute.​ ​Adversary system - BEFORE THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES [CPR] WERE INVENTED​ ​-​ ​DEFECT - the judge has no obligation to try to ascertain the truth; the judge can only rely on the​ ​submissions made by both parties,​ ​-​ ​Cross-examination, which is one of the main pillars of the adversarial system, can result​ ​in the uncovering of untruth but not necessarily what the truth is.​ ​-​ ​This system is essentially concerned with dispute resolution between parties and not the truth.​ ​Dispute resolution is the administration of justice.​ ​-​ ​The court has no independent power to seek information for its own assistance if the parties do​ ​not provide it - Air Canada v. Secretary of State for Trade. → Justice in this context meant​ ​procedural correctness, not necessarily reaching the "correct" factual result.​ ​ ith the formulation of CPR, the disinterest in the truth was diluted; the judges started moving towards​ W ​the notion of administering justice by ascertaining​​all​​relevant and material facts of the case and not​ ​merely those presented by the parties. The judge is no longer a neutral party, but a party actively trying to​ ​ascertain the truth, i.e., real justice. This move was from procedural justice to substantive justice.​ ​ hree major developments in the English procedural system can result in the demise of the adversarial​ T ​system in the country. They are :​ ​-​ ​INFORMED JUDGE - the new rules stress the need for the court to be well informed from the​ ​inception of the case; some even suggested allocating time for the judges to pre-read the case​ ​paper before the trial begins to give the judge a fair bit of understanding of the case so the judge​ ​does not go into trial clueless.​ ​-​ ​EXPANDED POWER - the CPR enables the judges to exercise greater autonomy over the case -​ ​judges can control evidence, set issues, and even dispose of cases summarily on their own​ ​initiative, which directly contradicts the parties' traditional freedom to present their case as they​ ​wish.​ ​-​ ​ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION - dispute should wherever possible be resolved​ ​without litigation​ ​The nearest thing to a 'correct' decision is, therefore, one that is reached by a judge who has at his​ ​disposal all the information that he considers necessary about the facts and the law. The code places the​ ​law in the hands of the judges, and places the facts in the hands of the parties.​ ​ he formulation of the CPR has resulted the move from mere dispute resolution to a search for the truth​ T ​in litigation. The parties no longer have the exclusive right to control the the proceedings and the​ ​knowledge supplied to the court for the determinaiton of the justice, the CPR equibts the judges with​ ​more power and devises a system wherein relevance of truth seeking is inflated than mere dispute​ ​resolution.​ ​ ispute resolution is no longer the sole function of the courts. We are moving toward a model where the​ D ​public interest in "correct" decisions outweighs the parties' freedom to play procedural games. The​ ​"hated" inquisitorial elements judicial management and a duty to the truth are now essential components​ ​of modern English civil justice.​ ​Adversarial System​ ​Inquisitorial System​ ​ he​​role​​of​​the​​judge​​is​​passive.​​The​​counsels​ T T ​ he​​role​​of​​the​​judge​​is​​more​​active​​in​​the​ ​are​ ​the​ ​star​ ​in​ ​this​ ​system.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​cross​ ​search​​for​​truth.​​The​​counsel​​is​​supporting​ ​examination in this system.​ ​and assist the judge in the search for truth​ I​ t​ ​is​ ​a​​contest​​between​​the​​two​​parties​​which​ I​ t​ ​is​ ​focused​ ​on​ ​inquiring​ ​into​ ​the​ ​truth.​ ​is believed would lead to the truth​ ​The​​judges​​wisdom​​and​​learning​​is​​seen​​as​ ​the best way to get to the truth​ ​ awyer​ ​is​ ​openly​ ​partisan,​ ​doesnt​ ​use​ A L ​ ll​ ​these​ ​elements​ ​dont​ ​exist​ ​in​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​that​ ​is​ ​against​ ​his​ ​client,​ ​talks​ ​to​ ​inquisitorial system​ ​witnesses​ ​before​ ​trial,​ ​uses​ ​element​ ​of​ ​surprise​ ​Role of​​stare decisis​ ​No role for​​stare decisis​ ​Module 2: Scheme of the Code​ ​The division, nature and procedure for amendment in sections and Orders/ Rules in the code.​ ​Session 03: Scheme of the Code​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ ections 2 (1), 2(18), 121,127, 128, 129​ S ​State of UP vs. Pt Chandra Bhushan Mishra​ ​Chandra Bhushan Mishra vs. Smt. Jayathri Devi​ ​ CHEME OF THE CODE​ S ​Two parts -​ ​-​ ​Body - 156 sections - substantive nature- general principles of jurisdiction -​ ​-​ ​cannot be amended except by the legislature​ ​-​ ​Schedule [first] - 51 orders and rules these are the procedural codes that gives the mechanism to​ ​assert and follow the substantive rights​ ​-​ ​Can be amended by the high court as they deem it fit, and as long as it is not in​ ​contraction of the substantive rights​ ​-​ ​CPC is not retrospective in nature​ ​-​ ​The sections and the order should be read harmoniously, and if the orders contradict the​ ​section than the latter takes precedence over the former.​ ​Sections​ ​-​ ​2 (1) -​​"Code" includes "Rules" (and not only sections)​ ​-​ ​2(18) -​​"Rules" means rules in the First Schedule​​or made under Section 122 or 125.​ ​-​ ​121 - rules shall have the effect as if enacted in the body of the code.​ ​-​ ​-​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ 22 - HC’s power to make, annul, or alter procedural rules for their own operations and the civil​ 1 ​courts under their superintendence.​ ​127 - Rules made by High Courts shall have the same force and effect as if contained in the First​ ​Schedule within the local limits​ ​128 - matters for which the rule may provide for​ ​129 -​ ​158 -​ ​ ections can only be amended by legislatures but the rules can be amended by both the legislature​ S ​and the HC​ ​1 - State of Uttar Pradesh​​Vs.​​Chandra Bhushan Misra​ ​FACTS​ ​Allahabad HC amended a provision regarding remand, where it expanded the power of the appellate​ c​ ourt to remand a matter to a lower court in interest of justice, which was beyond the power granted​ ​legislatively in the CPC of 1903.. Based on this, the appellate applied for refund of court fees, based on​ ​sec 13 of the Court Fees Act, which provides for the refund of the fee of the second appeal in the​ ​appellate court, if the matter is remanded to a lower court under the amended provision, i.e., in the​ ​interest of justice but specifically provides it under section 351 which is the part of the repealed CPC​ ​act of 1859 instead of naming order 41 rule 23 of the CPC of 1903.​ ​ISSUE​ ​ oes the statutory right to a court fee refund apply when a remand is made under a High​ D ​Court-amended procedural rule rather than the original Code provision ?​ ​RULE​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​APPLICATION​ ​-​ ​ ec 2(1) → code includes rules​ S ​Sec 2(18) → rules means the rules contained under schedule 1 and rules made by HC under​ ​122 and 125.​ ​Sec 127 → amended rules by the HC will have the same effect as if already included in 1st​ ​schedule in that local limits of the that HC.​ ​158 → The reference of provision [sections and rules both] of the new act will correspond to​ ​the provision of the old act.​ ​ hile Section 13 of the Court Fees Act still contained a historical reference to Section 351 of​ W ​the 1859 Code, the court used Section 158 of the 1908 Code to interpret that reference as​ ​pointing to the "corresponding" modern rule, which is Order XLI Rule 23 of the 1908 Code.​ ​ ection​ ​158​ ​expressly​ ​refers​ ​to​ ​"Order"​ ​and​ ​"Rule,"​ ​making​ ​it​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​references​ ​-​ S ​extend​ ​to​ ​provisions​ ​in​ ​the​ ​First​ ​Schedule,​ ​not​ ​just​ ​the​ ​main​ ​body​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Code.​ ​and​ ​since​ ​rules​ ​include​ ​rules​ ​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​HC,​ ​the​ ​corresponding​ ​section​​in​​section​​13​​of​ ​court fees act would include the amended grounds for remand as well.​ ​CONCLUSION​ ​2 - Chandra Bhushan Mishra vs. Smt. Jayathri Devi​ ​FACTS​ ​ISSUE​ ​Whether section 13 be read with the original provision of 351 or the amended version of the HC ?​ ​RULE​ ​APPLICATION​ ​-​ ​ rder 41 order 23 - prerequisites - remand on preliminary point and the interest of justice​ O ​[broad power]​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​ ara 44, 45, 47​ P ​ground on which remand has been ordered is immaterial to section 13, as long as the matter is​ ​remanded, section 13 will apply.​ ​-​ "​ corresponding rule" does not mean the rule as it was originally enacted in 1908, but​ ​rather the rule​​as it stands currently​​, including​​any valid amendments made by the​ ​High Court.​ ​Section 127​​stipulates that High Court amendments​​are​​assimilated​​into the First​ ​Schedule and possess the​​"same force and effect"​​as​​if the legislature had written​ ​them​ ​The​​remand for retrial​​is the material event that​​triggers the right to a refund. It is​ ​immaterial whether that remand was ordered because of a "preliminary point" or "in the​ ​interest of justice"; in both cases, the litigant is being sent back to start the process over.​ ​The meaning of section 13 is the same across the country, but the benefit derived from​ ​it may differ as per the procedural rules enacted by particular high courts. Like in this​ ​case, the court had amended the remand ground from mere preliminary point to interest​ ​of justice.​ ​Therefore, if the remand is ordered, then under section 13 of the court fees act, the​ ​plainitff is eligible for the refund​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​CONCLUSION​ ​Appeal allowed.​ ​Module 3 : Jurisdiction of the civil courts​ ​Session 4 - Pecuniary Jurisdiction​ -​ ​ ​Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 21, 21A, 99 of CPC​ ​-​ ​Relevant provisions of Karnataka Civil Courts Act and Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act​ ​Jurisdiction -​ ​-​ ​Jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and facts.​ ​-​ ​A court acuires jursidiction oly when it has all three kinds of jursidiction given under CPC.​ ​-​ ​The valuation of a suit decides the court fees and therefore is important for understanding​ ​pecuniary jurisdiction.​ ​-​ ​Becomes applicable in original suits and appeal stage. → Karnataka HC acts.​ ​-​ ​Sec 3 - provides the hierarchy of the courts​ ​-​ ​Sec 15 - any suit has to be filed in the lowest court that is competent to try it.​ ​-​ ​What makes it competent → the jurisdiction​ ​-​ ​Three kinds of jurisdiction -​ ​-​ ​pecuniary, - SEC 6​ ​-​ ​subject matter - SEC 9 (read with other legislation like the Commercial Courts Act)​ ​-​ ​Territorial jurisdiction - 16 - 20​ ​-​ ​16 - immovable property​ ​-​ ​17 - Immovable property in multiple jurisdictions​ ​-​ ​18 - Uncertain Local Boundaries​ ​-​ ​19 - Wrongs to Person or Movable property​ ​-​ ​20 - Residuary Suits (Where Cause of Action Arises)​ ​-​ ​One defendant resides​ ​-​ ​Multiple defendant reside​ ​-​ ​Where cause of action party or wholly took place​ ​-​ ​Sec 21 - objections to jurisdiction[only pecuniary and territorial and not subject matter] . → if​ ​raised at first instance​​and​​failure of justice​ ​-​ ​territorial jurisdiction​ ​-​ ​Pecuniary jurisdiction​ ​-​ ​Executionary jurisdiction​​NOT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION​ ​After objection -​ ​-​ ​After objection under 21 is accepted, it is transferred under Sec 24 by any of the court.​ ​[The court has the right to determine their own jurisdiction]​ ​Pecuniary Jurisdiction​​:​ ​-​ ​Given under section 6 of CPC​ ​-​ ​Governed by the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, this determines the financial limit of a court's​ ​competence.​ ​-​ ​Important Legislation​ ​-​ ​CPC​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ CFSVA - suit valuation act​ K ​Karnataka civil courts act​ ​Banglore civil courts act​ ​Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act​ ​3. Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan​ ​ ecree Valid = (Trial on Merits + Under-valuation)​ D ​Invalid Decree = (Proven Prejudice on Merits + Consequential Failure of Justice)​ ​Facts​ ​Parties​ ​-​ P ​ laintiff – seeking recovering of land​ ​-​ ​D11-1 – Trespassed on the land​ ​-​ ​D12-13 – actual proprietor of the land​ ​ORIGINAL SUIT​ ​-​ ​Recovery of land​ ​-​ ​Occupancy​ ​-​ ​Mesne profits​ ​HELD​ ​-​ ​In favor of the defendants – their occupancy rights established​ ​-​ ​Possession over 12 year as cultivating tenants​ ​-​ ​Documents showed no transfer of rights to the plaintiff​ ​Subordinate court​ ​Plaint for recovery​ ​Original suit​ ​ ourt of​ C ​facts+law​ ​District court​ I​ n favour of defendants - Judgement of​ ​trial court upheld​ ​ irst appeal​ F ​[no question of​ ​jurisdiction or court​ ​fees raised]​ ​ ourt of​ C ​facts+law​ ​High Court​ I​ n favour of defendants -​​appeal​ ​dismissed​ ​Second appeal​ ​Court of law​ ​Plaintiff’s claim​ ​-​ ​HC should hear the facts and law,​ ​act as 1st appellate court​ ​-​ ​Prejudice by the district court -​ ​inferior jurisdiction​ ​issue​ ​- Whether the district court had the pecuniary jurisdiction to pass the decree?​ ​-​ ​Whether a decree passed by a court that lacks pecuniary jurisdiction (due to under-valuation) is a total​ ​nullity that can be challenged at any stage, including execution?​ ​-​ ​Whether a mere change in the forum of appeal constitutes prejudice on the merits under Section 11?​ ​-​ ​Whether a court hearing a second appeal has the power or obligation to re-examine findings of fact to​ ​determine if a jurisdictional error caused "prejudice"?​ ​Rule​ ​ decree passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction due to valuation error is not a nullity unless the error​ A ​prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit on its merits.​ ​Sec 11 SVA​ ​CPC - S.99,S.21 - First appeal​ ​CPC - S.96, S.100 - Second appeal​ ​ IRST APPEAL​ F ​S. 21 - no objection to jurisdiction unless​ ​-​ ​Raise it at the earliest possible opportunity​ ​-​ ​Failure of justice​ ​S.99 - No decree to be reversed/modified in appeal unless​ ​-​ ​Affecting the merits of the case​ ​-​ ​Jurisdiction of the court​ ​S.11 SVA​ ​-​ ​Notwithstanding anything under cpc S.99 →​ ​-​ ​It restricts appellate courts from entertaining jurisdiction objections unless two conditions are met​ ​-​ ​The objection was raised in the original lower court before issues were framed, or in the lower​ ​appellate court’s memorandum of appeal​ ​-​ ​The valuation error prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits​ ​SECOND APPEAL​ ​S.100 -​​Limits the scope of second appeals to questions​​of law.​ ​ decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity unless it affects the merits of the case OR failure if​ A ​justice.​ ​An incompetent forum is not a prejudice on the merits → pecuniary jurisdiction is not a question of merit but a​ ​question of technicality.​ ​A judgment or decree reached after a full and fair trial on the facts is not overturned simply because of a​ ​technical error in calculating the suit's value.​ ​application​ ​-​ ​ he Court affirmed the fundamental principle that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a​ T ​nullity​ ​-​ ​However, it held that Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is a self-contained provision​ ​specifically enacted to avoid this result in cases of valuation errors​ ​-​ ​The legislative policy is to treat pecuniary jurisdictional objections as technical and not open to​ ​consideration unless there has been prejudice on the merits​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​Conclusion​ ​ mere change in the forum of appeal is not prejudice → in fact, due to under valuation by the plaintiffs​ A ​themselves gave them expanded right of appeal at two place - district and the high court.​ ​Prejudice is a question of fact in each case because Prejudice occurs when there is a consequential​ ​failure of justice like if a suit that should have been a regular trial is tried as a Small Cause (summary​ ​procedure, no discovery, no right of appeal), the merits are prejudicially affected.​ ​prejudice can be a ground for relief only when it is due to the action of another party and not when it​ ​results from one's own act.​ ​the appellants received a fair and full hearing in the District Court and showed no resulting injustice →​ ​The District Court decree was not a nullity​ ​Appeal dismissed, because no prejudice as to the merits of the case under S11 of SVA.​ ​ ppeals are not a matter of a right but is provided by the law​ A ​CPC Requires three things to include in the plaint​ ​-​ ​Paid the court fees​ ​-​ ​Court has jurisdiction over the pleading itself.​ ​-​ ​Valuation slip​ ​Hiererachy of courts​ ​-​ ​KARANATAKA COURT HIERARCHY [karnataka civil courts act]​ ​-​ ​Sec 13 - territorial jurisdiciton and state Govt’s power to take up the amendment of local limitsl​ ​Establishment​ ​Jurisdiction​ ​ mall cause court act​ S ​(not included in the​ ​karnataka civil act )​ ​ ecuniary​ P ​Jurisdiction​ ​ lakh​ 1 ​[1 lakh in blr]​ ​COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE​ ​Lowest court - sec 7​ ​Sec 17​ ​15 lakh​ ​ OURT OF SENIOR​ C ​CIVIL JUDGE​ ​Sec 16​ ​Above 15 lakh​ ​Sec 6​ ​DISTRICT COURT​ ​Sec 3​ ​Sec 14​ ​HIGH COURT​ ​Session 5: Territorial Jurisdiction​ ​-​ ​ PC provides for specific situations that give rise to the question of suit and territorial​ C ​jurisdiction → immovable and movable, where multiple property is situated, uncertain​ ​jurisdiction,personal injury etc and​​cause of action.​ ​4. M/s Kusum Ingots vs UOI​ (​ Integral Facts + Implementation Consequences) - (Situs of Legislature + Mere Passing of​ ​Act) = Territorial Jurisdiction​ ​Facts​ ​ ppellant is a company registered in Mumbai. Took loan from SBI Bhopal branch. Bank issued​ A ​notice of repayment to the bank under SARFAESI Act. Appellant filed writ petition in​​Delhi HC,​ ​clammagenling the constitutionality of that act. DHC dismissed appeal based on lack of​ ​jurisdicotin , matter went to the SC.​ ​issues​ ​ hether the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226​ W ​of the Constitution of India is determined by the seat of the law-making authority (the Union or​ ​State Government) or exclusively by the location where the "cause of action," wholly or in part,​ ​arises?​ ​Rule​ ​ rticle 226 (2) - jurisdiction is tied strictly to the territory where the cause of action arises,​ A ​notwithstanding the location of the seat of the government or authority.​ ​ ection 20(c): States that suits shall be instituted where the cause of action, wholly or in part,​ S ​arises.​ ​Mere passing of an act at a location does not provide jurisdiction, jurisdiction comes from cause​ ​of action ie. where the harm, infringement etc took place.​ ​application​ ​ ause of Action as the Determinant​​: The court clarified​​that under Article 226(2), jurisdiction is​ C ​tied strictly to the territory where the cause of action arises, notwithstanding the location of the​ ​seat of the government or authority​ ​I​rrelevance of Situs​​: The situs of the office of the​​maker of the law (such as Parliament in Delhi)​ ​does not, by itself, constitute a cause of action or confer jurisdiction on that specific High Court​ ​Requirement of Implementation​​: The mere passing of​​a legislation does not create a cause of​ ​action; jurisdiction only arises when the law is implemented and results in "civil or evil​ ​consequences" for the petitioner in a specific territory​ ​Integral Facts​​: For jurisdiction to be established,​​at least a "small fraction" of the "integral facts"​ ​(material facts necessary to prove the case) must have occurred within the court's territorial​ ​limits​ ​Conclusion​ ​Appeal dismissed​ ​Session 6 : Subject Matter Jurisdiction​ J​ urisdiction over subject matter is a​​sine qua non​​of a civil suit. Generally, all the civil courts​​have power​ ​to try​​all​​civil suits unless explicitly barred. The​​exception made for the suits under civil court are the​ s​ pecial suits. Although there is not a definition of civil, it is always understood by juxtapositioning it with​ ​criminal matter. Subject matter means the relief claimed and not the property involved. Exlusiom of​ ​jurisdiction of the civil court is strictly constured and not readily inferred. This is a question of law​ ​becuase it needs an​​inherent​​power to try the suit​​.​ ​ suit can be said to be of civil nature if it involves determination of civil rights → within the domain of​ A ​private law as distinct from criminal, political matters and public law.​ ​ wo conditions needed for a matter be tried by a civil court :​ T ​(i) The suit must be of a civil nature; and​ ​(ii) The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly barred.​ ​ he procedure of the special legislation has to be followed if thet are explicitly provided and not the​ T ​general rules of the CPC.​ ​ eneral Principle -​​Every presumption or interpretation​​regarding jurisdiction should be made in favour​ G ​of the jurisdiction of the civil court, except when - expressly barred or impliedly barred, a civil court has​ ​inherent power to decide its own jurisdiction.​ ​Bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts​ ​-​ ​Express bar​​- certain statues explicitly remove the​​jurisdiction of civil courts and make special​ ​courts for the redressal or remedy.​ ​-​ ​Land Reforms Act, Cooperative Societies Act, Telegraph Ac​​→​​explicitly provide that​ ​civl courts cannot entertain matters of these subjects.​ ​-​ ​Implied bar​​- jurisdiction is barred based on the​​general principles of law or public policy, Where​ ​a statute provides a specific remedy, a person must normally pursue that remedy instead of​ ​approaching a civil court. Question of politics, constitutional [vires of act], acts of state, revocery​ ​of costs in criminal court etc are by implication not to be tried by the civil courts.​ ​-​ ​WHEN IS IT RAISED ?​ ​i.​ ​A statute provides for a special remedy to an aggrieved party. [then the remedy of​ ​the civil court is barred]​ ​ii.​ ​The statute provides that the particular tribunal shall decide a;; questions relating​ ​to rights and liabilities of the parties.​ ​-​ ​Although a civil court has the inherent power to determine its own jursidciotn, the​ ​tribunals which are established under a particular statute cannot themselves decide the​ ​constitutional validity of such statute because it will be against the principles of natural​ ​justice → no one can be a judge in their own case.​ ​How is subject matter jurisdiction decided?​ ​-​ ​Jurisdictional Fact -​​condition precedent prior to​​theexercise of jurisdiction → certain state of​ ​facts.​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ LAINT​​- the court only looks at the averments made in the plaint filed by the plainitff to​ P ​determine jurisdction​ ​DEFENDANTS ROLE​​- The defence taken by the defendant​​is irrelevant, their argument can​ ​only refer to the plaint filed.​ ​CAUSE OF ACTION​​- all the integral facts has to be​​provided in the plaint because these​ ​integral facts provide for the jurisdiction of the court.​ ​QUESTIONS/STEPS TO DETERMINE PLACE OF SUING.​ ​territorial jurisdiction​ ​1)​ ​Does the suit involve property ?​ ​a)​ ​YES​ ​i)​ ​immovable property? → apply section 16-17​ ​(1)​ ​Where is the suit property situated? → MULTIPLE COURTS MIGHT​ ​BE IN THIS PLACE​ ​ii)​ ​Movable property? → apply 19​ ​b)​ ​NO - Personal injury → apply 19​ ​c)​ ​NO - Other matters → apply 20 [cause of action, wherever defendants reside, carry​ ​business etx]​ ​Subject Matter jurisdiction​ ​2)​ ​Subject Matter jurisdiction of all the courts in that territory.​ ​a)​ ​Express bar? - then look for tribunals​ ​b)​ ​Implied bar?​ ​Whether those courts have jurisdiction over that subject matter or not?​ ​Pecuniary Jursdiction - SEC 6​ ​After determination of subject matter multiple courts might still have jurisdiction, this is where we​ ​determine pecuniary limits.​ ​3)​ ​Whether suit property [determined through suits valuation act] falls within the legislative​ ​pecuniary limits?​ ​a)​ ​Yes → go there​ ​b)​ ​No → go to higher court​ -​ ​ ​KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT​ ​Lowest grade​ ​After determination of all the jursdicton → place of suing, subject matter and pecuniary. There might be​ ​courts which will qualify all these criteria. To determine where to file the suit.​ ​4)​ ​Which amongst the courts are the lowest grade?​ ​IF SOME OF THIS IS NOT FOLLOWED THEN USING SECTION 21 WE ASK FOR OBJECTIONS.​ ​-​ ​Only regarding territorial and pecuniary​ ​-​ ​Two conditions for objections [both needed]​ ​-​ ​Raised in the court of first instance​ ​-​ ​Resulted into failure of justice.​ ​-​ ​Therefore unless the objections regarding pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction has not be raised in​ ​the court of first instance​​and​​unless it has not​​resulted into failure of justice, the court will not​ ​enterntain such objections.​ ​-​ ​Objections with regards to subject matter jurisdcion can be raised at any time.​ ​5. Dhulabhai vs State of MP​ c​ ivil court jurisdicton = Total jurisdiction except when → Express Bar + Adequate Statutory Remedy​ ​Civil court jurisdction not exlcuded when → (Ultra Vires Provision + Violation of Fundamental Judicial​ ​Procedure by the special court.​ ​Facts​ ​ he appellants were tobacco dealers with business premises in Ujjain they purchased and sold​ T ​tobacco for eating, smoking, and preparing bidis, sourcing it both locally and via imports from​ ​other states. Under a state tax levilsation the govt started levying tax on imported tobacco only and​ ​not ones growing inside state. The appellants filed suits for the refund of this tax, asserting it was​ ​illegally collected in violation of Article 301 (Freedom of trade and commerce) and was not saved​ ​by Article 304(a) of the Constitution​ ​Issue​ ​when can civil courts exercise jurisdiction despite statutory bars imposed by special legislation?​ ​Rule​ ​Application​ ​1.​ F ​ inality + Adequate Remedy:​​If a statute grants finality​​and an​​adequate​ ​remedy​​, jurisdiction is barred, unless the Act's provisions​​or fundamental judicial​ ​procedures were ignored.​ ​2.​ ​Express Bar:​​An express bar requires an inquiry into​​the​​adequacy of remedies​​,​ ​but it is not always decisive. Where no express bar exists, the intent and adequacy​ ​of remedies are​​decisive​​.​ ​3.​ ​Vires of the Act:​​Challenges to the Act itself as​​ultra vires​​cannot be brought​ ​before statutory tribunals.​ ​4.​ ​Void Laws:​​A suit is open if a provision is​​already​​declared unconstitutional​​or​ ​is currently being challenged on those grounds.​ ​5.​ ​No Refund Machinery:​​If the Act contains​​no machinery​​for refund​​of illegally​ ​collected tax, a suit lies.​ ​6.​ ​Correctness vs. Vires:​​Questions of​​mere correctness​​(merits) of an assessment​ ​are for statutory authorities only; suits are barred if finality is prescribed.​ ​7.​ ​Presumption Against Ouster:​​Exclusion of Civil Court​​jurisdiction is​​not readily​ ​inferred​​unless the above conditions are met​ ​The Court found that the notifications were discriminatory and unconstitutional under​ ​ rticle 304(a). Because the notifications were void, the tax authorities lacked the​ A ​jurisdiction to even proceed with an assessment. The case fell into categories 3 and 4 of the​ ​above principles. Consequently, Section 17 did not bar the suits, as the authorities had​ ​acted​​outside the law.​ ​Conclusion​ ​6. Chandrika misir vs bhaiya lal​ ​Facts​ ​ ppellants filed a lawsuit in a Civil Court to evict the respondent from agricultural land.On final​ A ​appeal, the Supreme Court realized the land fell under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land​ ​Reforms Act.This specific statute stripped Civil Courts of authority and gave exclusive​ ​jurisdiction over agricultural land disputes to Revenue Courts only.​ ​Issue​ ​ an a party raise a plea regarding a court's absolute lack of jurisdiction for the very first time​ C ​during a final appeal before the Supreme Cour​ ​Rule​ ​ decree passed by a court without inherent jurisdiction is a legal nullity. A plea​ A ​questioning a court's fundamental jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and can be​ ​raised at any stage of litigation​ ​Application​ ​ rdinary Civil Courts are explicitly barred by statute from hearing cases governed by the UPZA​ O ​& LR Act.Because the trial court structurally lacked the power to hear the case, its proceedings​ ​were coram non judice (not before a judge).The failure of the respondent to raise this objection in​ ​lower courts did not waive the defect, as parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by consent or​ ​silence.​ ​Conclusion​ ​dismissed the appeal​ ​Session 7: Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Contd.)​ ​7. ABC Laminart vs AP agencies​ ​Facts​ ​ oth parties got into a contract for supply of metallic yarn. The appellants are the manufacturing​ B ​company in Karia, Gujarat and the respondent is partnership firm is in the Salem. One of the​ ​clauses of the contract read that - “Any dispute arising out of this sale shall be subject to Kaira​ ​jurisdiction.” Respondent filed for recovery of money and damages in Salem. Appellants raised​ ​onjection regarding jurisdiction. Any dispute arising out of this sale shall be subject to Kaira​ ​jurisdiction.as parties by express contract had agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction in regard to all​ ​disputes arising out of the contract on the civil Court at Kaira.​ ​Issue​ ​Has the court no jurisdiction to entertain or try this suit ?​ ​Rule​ ​In contractual disputes, the cause of action arises at:​ ​●​ ​The place where the contract was​​made​​.​ ​●​ ​The place where the contract was to be​​performed​​or​​performance completed.​ ​●​ ​The place where​​money was payable​​under the contract​ ​ he Test of Exclusivity​ T ​The Court held that to successfully oust the jurisdiction of other competent courts, the language of​ ​the contract must be "clear, unambiguous, and explicit"​ ​.​ ​Explicit Words: The use of words like "alone," "only," or "exclusive" clearly indicates an intent to​ ​exclude other forums.​ ​Inferred Intent: In some cases, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of​ ​one is the exclusion of another) may apply to infer exclusivity from the mention of a specific​ ​jurisdiction​ ​Application​ ​ aira had jurisdiction because the contract was made there​ K ​Salem had jurisdiction because the goods were delivered there (the "connecting factor")​ ​Deficient Language: Clause 11 stated disputes were "subject to Kaira jurisdiction" but did not use​ ​exclusive words like "only" or "exclusive → the court looked at the form over the substance to​ ​determine exclusivity.​ ​Jurisdiction has to be made out explicitly​ ​Conclusion​ ​8. Firm Seth Radha Kishan Vs. The Administrator, Municipal Committee​ ​ oundaries of Civil Court jurisdiction when a specialized statute provides its own remedial machinery. –​ b ​inside and outside the act.​ ​Facts​ ​ he appellant is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, carrying on business in​ T ​Ludhiana. The respondent is the Municipal Committee of Ludhiana​ ​The appellant imported Sambhar salt into the octroi limits of the Ludhiana Municipality​ ​Under a 1932 Government Notification, terminal tax was divided into two categories:​ ​Item 68: "Salt common" at a rate of 3 pies per maund​ ​Item 69: "Salt of all kinds other than common salt" at a much higher rate of As. 10 per maund​ ​The Municipal Committee collected tax on the Sambhar salt at the higher rate (Item 69), contending​ ​it was not "common salt"​ ​The appellant filed a suit in the Civil Court at Ludhiana seeking a refund of the excess tax plus​ ​interest, arguing the imposition was illegal​ ​Issue​ ​ oes a Civil Court have the jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit challenging an incorrect tax classification​ D ​if the governing tax statute provides its own specific remedy and appeals process?​ ​Rule​ ​ nder Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is impliedly​ U ​barred when a special statute creates a liability (like a tax) and provides a specific internal remedy​ ​for disputes, provided the authorities act within the scope of that law.​ ​Application​ ​ he Supreme Court distinguished between a complete lack of power and a mere administrative​ T ​mistake.The Committee had the legal authority to tax salt; misclassifying the type of salt was an​ ​error of fact, not an action outside its legal boundaries (ultra vires).A Civil Court can only step in if​ ​the statutory authority acts completely outside its legal powers, violates natural justice, or if the​ ​internal remedy is entirely inadequate. None of those exceptions applied here​ ​Conclusion​ ​ he Supreme Court dismissed the firm's suit, ruling that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The​ T ​firm's only legal option was to use the internal appeals system built into the Punjab Municipal Act.​ ​9. Premier Automobiles Ltd vs Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke​ ​Facts​ ​ orkers filed a suit in Civil Court to block a change in a company incentive scheme, citing​ W ​violations of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.​ ​Issue​ ​ o ordinary Civil Courts have jurisdiction over an employment dispute where the underlying right is​ D ​created by labor laws?​ ​Rule​ ​ he Industrial Disputes Act is a self-contained code. Civil Courts have no jurisdiction over rights​ T ​created exclusively by specialized labor statutes.​ ​Application​ ​ ecause the worker's rights to protest altered service conditions stem entirely from industrial​ B ​relations law rather than standard common law contracts, civil judges cannot bypass specialized​ ​labor tribunals.​ ​-​ ​Right Under Common Law Only: If a dispute is not an industrial dispute under the ID Act​ ​and relates entirely to a right under general common law, a civil suit is fully maintainable.​ ​-​ ​Dual-Remedy Rights: If a dispute involves a right under general common law but also​ ​qualifies as an industrial dispute, the aggrieved party has a choice. They can choose either a​ ​Civil Court or use the statutory labor machinery.​ ​-​ ​Rights Created Solely by the ID Act: If the right or liability being contested is strictly​ ​created by the ID Act itself (and does not exist under general common law), the Civil Court​ ​has no jurisdiction. The remedy can only be pursued through industrial tribunals.​ ​-​ ​General Enforcement Prohibited: Civil courts will not grant injunctions or decrees to prevent​ ​a breach of contract if that contract or settlement is uniquely recognized and enforceable​ ​under the ID Act alone​ ​Conclusion​ ​Dismissed the suit​ ​Module 4 - Transfer of Suits​ ​Session 8 : Transfer of Suits​ ​ ransfer of suit is a new application itself, not necessarily applied under a pending suit. It is an​ T ​independent suit.​ ​Section 22-25 of CPC provides for transfer of suits.​ ​Sec 25 is broader than other provisions regarding transfer of suits​ ​Section 22 allows the defendant to make an application for transfer of a suit, whereas Section 23 Indicates​ ​the court to which such an application can be made. Section 24 embodies general power of transfer any​ ​suit, appeal or other proceeding from a court subordinate to that High Court to a court not subordinate to​ ​that High Court. Section 25 confers very wide, plenary and extensive powers on Supreme Court to​ ​transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings from one High Court to another Civil Court in another state.​ ​ ec 22 → What kinds of suits​ S ​Sec 23 - Which court application lies [appellate, HC’s power to transfer]​ ​Sec 24 - Power of transfer​​→ after notice to other​​party, and giving sufficient time to the other party to​ ​submit their averrments, objection to transfer application can be filed by anyone. Transfer can happen​​at​ ​any stage. –​ ​-​ ​High Court or District Court can transfer and withdraw any case on the application of​ ​any of the parties at any stage of the suit whether on pending or appeal proceedings. But​ ​the transfer of cases in any court the court in which case is transferred should be​ ​competent to deal with that case. The High Court also has the power to withdraw the​ ​case from any court and transfer it to any other court. Either within the same appellate​ ​court or under a different appellate court the case will be within the scope of the same​ ​high court or it can be within the jurisdiction of other High courts.​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​ ransfer of suit​ T ​Withdraw suit​​[return of plaint → order 7 rule 10​​]​​→ a court that determines it lacks jurisdiction​ ​to hear a case must return the plaint at any stage of the suit so it can be filed in the proper court.​ ​Courts decide this strictly based on the plaintiff's averments.​ ​Sec 25 -​ ​-​ ​A suit alrady pending​ ​-​ ​Sought to be transferred​ ​-​ ​From one high court to another highcourt, [highcourt also includes all the civil courts under it]​ ​The difference between sec 23 (3) and sec 25.​ ​ ection 23 merely lays down the forum in which applications under Section 22 are to be​ S ​made. Although Section 22 is mentioned in Clause (1) of Section 23 only, Clauses (2)​ a​ nd (3) of that Section also refer to an application made under Section 22 and do not refer​ ​to an application made under Section 24. Section 23 is not an independent section. It is​ ​supplemental to Section 22. Section 24 is a general provision empowering the High Court​ ​or the District Court to transfer a case on the motion of any other party or on its own​ ​motion.​​The general power conferred by Section 24​​is not to be applied where the case​ ​falls under Section 22.​​If Section 24 were to apply​​to the classes of cases covered by​ ​Section 22, it would not have been necessary for the Legislature to enact Section 22 at all.​ ​It is a general principle of interpretation of Statutes that where there is a special provision​ ​for a particular matter and there is also a general provision, the special provision should​ ​be applied. The application in the present case having been made on the ground which is​ ​covered by Section 22 falls under that Section and not under Section 24​​. → Dr. Rajnath v​ ​Vaidya Ram.​ ​Application under section 22 requires two condition -​ ​-​ ​Earliest possible opportunity -​​application should​​be made at the earliest​ ​possible opportunity and in any case at or before the settlement of issues​ ​-​ ​Notice to party -​​it should be made after notice to​​the other party.​ ​10. Shah Newaz Khan and Ors. Vs. State of Nagaland​ ​Facts​ ​ he appellants originally filed a title suit in Dimapur, Nagaland. Alleging hostile​ T ​circumstances that made it impossible to continue the case there, they applied to the​ ​Gauhati High Court under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer the suit to Guwahati,​ ​Assam.​ ​Issue​ ​ oes inter-state transfer fall under section 25 or 24 when the highcourt has jurisdiction​ D ​over both the states?​ ​Rule​ ​ ection 24, CPC: Allows a High Court to transfer any case from any subordinate court​ S ​to any other court competent to try it.​ ​Section 25, CPC: Empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases from a High​ ​Court/civil court in one State to a High Court/civil court in another State.​ ​Article 231, Constitution: Authorizes Parliament to establish a common High Court for​ ​two or more States.​ ​Application​ ​ ll courts in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh are subordinate to the​ A ​Gauhati High Court.Scope of Section 24: Since the transferring and receiving courts are​ ​both subordinate to the same High Court, Section 24 applies seamlessly, regardless of​ ​state borders.Scope of Section 25: Section 25 is meant for transfers between courts​ ​under different High Courts. It does not strip a common High Court of its administrative​ ​and judicial control over its own territory.​ ​Conclusion​ c​ ommon High Court has the power under Section 24 of the CPC to execute inter-State​ ​transfers within its jurisdiction.​ ​Module 5: Res-judicata and Res-Subjudice​ ​Session 9: Matters Directly and Substantially in Issue​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ ES JUDICATA → Rule of conclusivenss of a judgement​ R ​Ex captio res judicata -​​‘’one suit and one decision​​is enough for any single dispute.’’​ ​Res judicata relates to a matter already adjudicated upon. It bars the trial of a suit or an issue in​ ​which the matter​​directly and substantially in issue​​has already been adjudicated [raised,​ ​argued, conflicted and decided] in a previous suit.​ ​-​ ​ n erroneous decision on a pure question of law relating to the jurisdiction of a court or the​ A ​interpretation of a statute does not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the​ ​same parties. It is a branch of estoppel where estoppel applies to the parties, res judicata applies​ ​to the whole case.​ ​STAGES INVOLVED IN A CIVIL SUIT​ ​-​ ​Plaint​ ​-​ ​Written statement​ ​-​ ​Issues framed​ ​-​ ​Evidence led​ ​-​ ​Judgment​ ​Matter in issue​ ​-​ ​Matter directly and substantially in issue​ ​-​ ​Actually in issues -​​explanation III​ ​-​ ​Constructively in issue -​​explanation IV.​ ​-​ ​Matter collaterally and incidentally in issue​ ​-​ ​Whether a court could give the relief without deciding on a matter?​ ​-​ ​Yes → incidental​ ​-​ ​No → Substantial​ ​PREREQUISITES TO APPLY RES JUDICATA IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT​ ​-​ ​Same parties​ ​-​ ​Same cause of action​ ​-​ ​Same relief sought​ ​-​ ​Raised in the plaint itself​ ​-​ ​The defendant must have either attacked it or it must be referred to​​–​​EXP III​ ​-​ ​Matter in issue in the subsequent suit should be directly and substantially dealt with in the​ ​previous suit. [engagement by both parties on this issue]​ ​-​ ​TEST - whether the court or authority​​had​​to decide​​that specific question to resolve the​ ​main dispute. → If the final judgment could have been reached without deciding the​ ​issue, it is merely collateral or incidental.​ ​-​ ​Res judicata applies to​ ​-​ ​Question of fact​ ​-​ -​ ​ ​Mixed question of law and fact (like jurisdiction)​ ​-​ ​Question of law (when cause of the action is the same)​ ​ es judicata does not apply to​ R ​-​ ​Question of law when​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​ ecause it is the underlying reason for the decision and not the decision itself.​ B ​Resjudicata applies only on the decision and between the parties whereas underlying​ ​reason ie. the law when changed applies in general.​ ​11. Isher Singh Vs. Sarwan Singh - matter substantial in issue​ (​ Pleadings + Framed Issue + Led Evidence + Appellate Finding) + (Necessity for Relief) = Res Judicata​ ​→ GENERAL CASE - TEST FOR RES JUDICATA.​ ​Facts​ ​ he appellant filed a suit for possession and declaration of title based on an oral will by the deceased, the​ T ​respondents refuted is title on and asserted that the title belongs to them by the virtue of them being the​ ​reversioners of the deceased, who died issue-less and without leaving a widow behind.​ ​Procedural history​ ​Suit 1​ ​Court​ ​Arguements​ ​Decision​ ​Trial court​ ​-​ ​OS - Possession,​ ​declaration of title​ ​ - has title because of an oral will​ P ​that was bestowed upon him by the​ ​deceased after his service rendered​ ​to him.​ ​ rial court dismissed both the​ T ​submission, oral will not​ ​substantiated, and the reversioners​ ​could not prove their relationship​ ​of reversioners of the deceased.​ ​D - Are collaterals and legal heirs.​ ​District Court​ ​Appeal by both P and D​ ​ pheld the relationship of​ U ​reversioners between the deceased​ ​and the defendants.​ ​Dismissed the plaintiff's plea of​ ​oral will.​ ​High court​ ​Appeal by P​ ​Upheld decree of the district court.​ ​Suit 2​ ​Court​ ​Arguments​ ​Decision​ ​Trial court​ ​-​ ​OS - Possession​ ​ lea by the defendant for​ P ​possession based on the title​ ​declared in suit 1.​ ​ assed a decree for possession in​ P ​favour of the defendant, on the​ ​principle of res judicata.​ ​District court​ I​ sher Singh [P] - Relationship of​ ​reversionship no established​ ​High court​ ​Supreme Court​ ​ ismissed on the same reasoning​ D ​of res judicata​ ​ ismissed the appeal, affirming​ d ​that the respondents' title as heirs​ ​was barred by res judicata​ ​ hether the issue of relationship​ w ​was "directly and substantially in​ ​issue" in the first suit.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the issue of relationship was "directly and substantially in issue" in the first suit, thus to be hit by res​ w ​judicata?​ ​Rule​ ​ finding on an issue is​​res judicata​​if it was raised​​in the pleadings, addressed via a specific issue,​ A ​supported by evidence, and necessary for the complete adjudication of the rights claimed in the suit.​ ​Test​ ​Test for res judicata.​ ​ )​ 1 ​2)​ ​3)​ ​4)​ ​5)​ ​Analysis​ ​The Court’s decision rested on the doctrine of​​res​​judicata​​(Section 11 of the CPC).​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​Conclusion​ ​ he issue was raised in terms in the pleadings.​ T ​An issue was framed by the trial judge.​ ​Evidence was led by both parties specifically on that issue.​ ​A finding was recorded by the appellate court.​ ​It was necessary to decide the issue to completely adjudicate the points for granting relief​ ​ inding Finding:​​The Court held that the finding from​​the first suit’s appeal—which established​ B ​that the respondents were the "collaterals" (rightful heirs) of the deceased—was binding.​ ​Directly and Substantially in Issue:​​Even though the​​first suit was dismissed because the appellant​ ​failed to prove an oral will, the question of the respondents' heirship had been "directly and​ ​substantially in issue" and was finally decided by the District Judge in that earlier round.​ ​Result:​​Because this issue was​​res judicata​​, the appellant​​could not challenge the respondents' title​ ​again. Consequently, the respondents were entitled to the decree for possession of the property.​ ​Appeal dismissed​ ​12. Avtar Singh and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Sing​ ​ atters​​directly​​and​​substantially​​in issue is when it has been presented contested and decided, not when​ M ​the court suo moto passes a judgment without any objection of the defendant.​ ​Facts​ ​ he appellants (Avtar Singh and others) sought remedy through various courts regarding a dispute. They​ T ​first filed a suit in a civil court, which ruled it had no jurisdiction​​after the defendants had argued​​that​ ​the court lacked jurisdiction.​​They then approached​​a revenue court, which similarly held it lacked​ ​jurisdiction.Following the second rejection, the plaintiffs filed a fresh suit back in the civil court​ ​dumbass istg.​ ​Issue​ ​Will a decision in the preceding suit on jurisdiction bind a subsequent SUIT in the same jurisdiction?​ ​Rule​ I​ f the defendant does not appear and the Court on its own, returns the plaint on the ground of lack of​ ​jurisdiction the order in a subsequent suit may not operate as res judicata but if the defendant appears​ ​and an issue is raised and decided then the decision on the question of jurisdiction will operate as res​ ​judicata in a subsequent suit although the reasons for its decision may not be so.​ ​Analysis​ ​-​ ​-​ ​Conclusion​ ​ o since the revenue court on its owned retured the plaint without any objections made by the​ S ​defendant, it would not be treated as res judicata if a new fresh suit with the same cause of​ ​action, for the same relief, between the same parties in that revenue court was again filed.​ ​The plainitff instead of appealing the decision of the revenue court further, or refiling a fresh suit​ ​again in the revenue; filed a fresh suit in the​​civil​​court​​, therefore the decision on jurisdiction of​ ​the civil court will apply as res judicata because the matter of jurisdiction was heard, contested,​ ​objected and finally decided by the court.​ ​Appeal dismissed. Poor guy.​ ​13. Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal vs Dossibai NB Jeejeebhoy​ ​Pure question of law is not res judicata​ ​Facts​ ​ was granted a lease on land for the construction of a building by D, A applied for​​standard rent​ A ​under the Bombay Rents Acts, for which a suit was filed in the Civil Judge, borivali, which was in​ ​Thane district at that time. Where it was held that open lands were outside the purview of the act.​ ​This position of law was later changed by different case law by theA second suit was filed by A for​ ​determination of standard rent​ ​Issue​ ​ hether res judicata applies on a pure question of law in a subsequent suit between the same parties​ W ​that has been authoritatively changed after the decision in the preceding suit​ ​Rule​ ​ HE QUESTION OF LAW WILL BE TREATED AS RES JUDICATA EXCEPT IN THE​ T ​FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES :​ ​1) If the cause of action is different than the previous suit​ ​2) when the law has been substantially altered ever since the last decision​ ​3) when the decision is regarding same jurisdiction​ ​4) when the decision declares something which is prohibited by law.​ ​ he correctness of the previous suit is not a determinant while applying res judicata.​ T ​Substantial change in the position of law (interpretation of statute) renders the previous decision on​ ​question of law erroneous, therefore resjudicata does not apply.​ ​Analysis​ ​-​ ​ he interpretation of borivali court became errneous in the light of SC judgements, thus​ T ​altering the position of law regarding an interpretation of statute.​ ​-​ ​ he Supreme Court held that the 1955 decision was a pure error of law that wrongly barred​ T ​the trial court's jurisdiction. Because a landlord-tenant relationship creates a continuous,​ ​recurring cause of action, the tenant’s ongoing occupancy after the legal interpretation​ ​changed gave rise to a fresh claim. Applying res judicata here would force the court to​ ​perpetually obey an incorrect law over an explicit statutory mandate.​ ​Fact vs. Law: While competent decisions on questions of fact or mixed questions of law​ ​and fact are finally determined (even if erroneous), a pure question of law unrelated to the​ ​facts of a right is not a "matter in issue".​ ​-​ ​Conclusion​ ​Appeal allowed, remanded to court of first instnace to be tried based on the new position of law.​ ​14. Gangabai vs Chhabubai​ ​Matter incidental in issue​ ​-​ ​not essential to the relief claimed​ ​-​ ​Adjudicated by a court lacking the competency to decide on that matter will be treated as​ ​incidental.​ ​Facts​ ​ hhabubai executed a nominal sale deed of her house to Gangabai solely as collateral security for a​ C ​₹2,000 loan. Gangabai subsequently filed and won rent recovery suits against Chhabubai in the​ ​Court of Small Causes by claiming she was the landlord. Chhabubai then filed a regular civil suit to​ ​declare the sale deed a complete sham transaction and establish that she remained the true property​ ​owner.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether a prior finding on property ownership by an incompetent court is a direct adjudication or a​ w ​merely incidental observation that cannot act as res judicata?​ ​Rule​ ​ matter is collaterally or incidentally in issue when it is decided solely for the purpose of deciding​ A ​the matter which is directly in issue. It is not the main subject of the litigation but is addressed as a​ ​stepping stone to resolve the primary dispute​ ​Analysis​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​Conclusion​ I​ f a matter is raised directly and substantially, it remains a direct issue on pleadings, but a​ ​court's lack of competency to try it means its finding on that issue cannot operate as res​ ​judicata in future proceedings, rather than automatically downgrading the issue itself into a​ ​merely incidental or collateral one.​ ​because a Court of Small Causes is inherently incompetent to determine title to immovable​ ​property, any finding it makes on title can only be regarded as incidental or collateral to the​ ​main relief it is actually authorized to grant (which was the recovery of rent.​ ​The issue addressed to decide the matter substantially in issue is called matter incidental to​ ​the matter in issue and therefore res judicata on incidental matter does not apply as res​ ​judicata.​ ​Suit dismissed, title of chhahubai was upheld.​ ​COMPARISON b/w Direct and Incidental matter​ ​-​ ​In​​the​​case​​of​​Isher​​Singh​​v.​​Sarwan​​Singh,​ ​the​​issue​​of​​the​​familial​​relationship​​was​​held​​to​​be​​directly​ ​and​​substantially​​in​​issue​​and​​adjudicated​​by​​a​​fully​​competent​​court,​​which​​is​​why​​it​​successfully​​acted​ ​as​​res​​judicata.​​This​​stands​​in​​exact​​contrast​​to​​Gangabai​​v.​​Chhabubai,​​where​​the​​prior​​court​​completely​ ​lacked the jurisdiction to determine the core matter and decided on issue which became matter incidental.​ ​15. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain​ ​CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA CASE​ ​Facts​ ​ Sub-Inspector of Police (Nawab Hussain) was dismissed from service by the Deputy​ A ​Inspector-General of Police (DIG). Hussain first filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article​ ​226, arguing he was denied a fair hearing during his dismissal. The petition was dismissed.He later​ ​filed a regular civil suit challenging the same dismissal, raising a new ground: that the DIG lacked​ ​the competency to dismiss him because he was appointed by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP).​ ​Issue​ ​ oes the doctrine of constructive res judicata bar a litigant from raising a new ground in a​ D ​subsequent civil suit if that ground could and should have been raised in an earlier constitutional​ ​writ petition?​ ​Rule​ ​ he general principle of constructive res judicata applies to writ petitions under Article​ T ​226, legally barring a litigant from challenging an action in a subsequent regular civil suit​ ​on a ground that might and ought to have been raised in the former writ petition​ ​Analysis​ ​Conclusion​ ​-​ T ​ he​​plea​​that​​the​​DIG​​lacked​​the​​competency​​to​​fire​​Hussain​​was​​an​​administrative​ ​fact known to him during the first writ petition.​ ​-​ ​This​​argument​​might​​and​​ought​​to​​have​​been​​raised​​in​​that​​initial​​filing​​to​​resolve​ ​the entire dispute at once.​ ​-​ ​Allowing​​a​​litigant​​to​​split​​their​​legal​​arguments​​into​​multiple​​consecutive​​lawsuits​ ​would result in an abuse of the judicial process.​ ​ es, The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of constructive res judicata applies to writ petitions.​ Y ​Nawab Hussain was legally barred from bringing the subsequent civil suit, and his claim was​ ​dismissed.​ ​CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA -​ ​-​ ​The doctrine of constructive​​res judicata​​is elaborated​​under Explanation IV of Section 11 of the​ ​CPC. It states that in any case which could or should have been raised as part of a defence in a​ ​previous suit will be considered to have been directly and substantially in question in that suit.​ ​-​ ​This doctrine emphasises that there is no difference between the claims actually made in court​ ​and those questions that could have been made but were not.​ ​-​ ​The doctrine of constructive​​res judicata​​prevents​​parties from raising arguments or defence in​ ​subsequent proceedings that could have been raised before in relation to the same subject matter.​ ​-​ ​Puts a statutory duty on the plaintiff to make the plaint as exhaustive as possible.​ ​Session 10: Competence of Court​ ​-​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ ​Different kinds of jurisdiction​ ​-​ ​Exclusive​ ​-​ ​Concurrent → dominant litus applied here because more than one court has​ ​jurisdiction.(preferential jurisdiction)​ ​-​ ​Limited jurisdiction → includes special courts, court with limited pecuniary limit​ ​Mostly related to EX. VIII of sec 11.​ ​After all the cases→ the competency of the previous court to adjudicate the subsequent court is​ ​immaterial for res judicata to apply. Ex 8 prevails over the wording of the main section.​ ​Competency include pecuniary, subject matter as well as territorial, meaning that even though the​ ​previous court did not have these three competency to try to subsequent suit, its decision in the​ ​previous suit will still apply as res judciata, to curb the proliferation of litigation as per the​ ​legislative intent. A fresh suit cannot be filed on the same matter, cause of action, between the​ ​same party in a court if the matter​​substantially​​in issue(​​essentiality test)​ ​has already been​​finally​ ​heard and decided​​(issue framed, objections, evidence​​led etc). The only remedy is to appeal to​ ​higher courts.​ ​16. Nabin Manjhi​ ​17. V.N. Devoki Amman v. P.V.N. Kunhi Raman​ ​ onflicting cases on the question of inclusion of limited pecuniary jurisdiction in the definition of​ C ​‘limited jurisdiction’ under explanation 8.​ ​Nabin manjhi​ ​Devoki Amma​ ​Facts​ ​ uit for partition in subordinate judge court.​ S ​defendants argued that prior to this suit the defendant​ ​had already instituted a suit against the plaintiff​ ​where it was held by the munsif court that an​ ​amicable partition had already taken place.​ ​Defendants argued for res judicata. Subordinate court​ ​adjudicated that since the munsif court was not​ ​competent to try this subsequent suit,its decision​ ​would not amount to res judicata.​ ​ he plaintiffs (members of a tavazhy, a branch of a​ T ​joint family) filed a suit for partition of joint family​ ​properties against the defendants. The status and​ ​character of some of these properties had already​ ​been determined in a previous litigation by a court of​ ​limited jurisdiction.The defendants argued that the​ ​current suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata​ ​regarding those specific properties.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the court of ‘limited jurisdiction’ covers civil courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction or only special​ W ​courts apart from civil courts?​ ​Rule​ ​ ourt of limited jurisdiction only includes special​ C ​courts outside the hierarchy of the civil courts,​ ​therefore explanation 8 only applies to special courts​ ​and not limited pecuniary jurisdiction.​ ​ ourt of limited jurisdiction also includes civil court​ C ​with limited pecuniary kurisdiciton therefore their​ ​decision will be treated as res judicata under​ ​explantation 8.​ ​Analysis​ ​ he Court ruled that an ordinary Civil Court with​ T ​limited pecuniary jurisdictioDevoki Amman is not a​ ​"Court of limited jurisdiction" within the meaning of​ ​Explanation VIII. Because the former court (the​ ​Munsif) lacked the pecuniary competence to try the​ ​subsequent suit, its finding did not operate as res​ ​judicata​ ​ he Munsiff's Court in the 1961 suit was fully​ T ​competent to decide the specific issue of whether​ ​items 3 to 12 belonged to the tavazhy, and that issue​ ​was heard and finally decided on its merits​ ​. Therefore, that finding is res judicata, and the higher​ ​pecuniary value of the subsequent partition suit does​ ​not bypass this bar​ ​Conclusion​ ​ he High Court upheld the lower courts' decrees and​ T ​dismissed the appeal.​ ​ he High court decreed the appeal and upheld the​ T ​decision of the munsif court.​ ​18. Sulochana Amma​ ​Court of limited jurisdiction includes pecuniary jurisdiction​ ​Facts​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the court of ‘limited jurisdiction’ covers civil courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction or​ W ​only special courts apart from civil courts?​ ​Rule​ t​he term "Court of limited jurisdiction" in Explanation VIII to Section 11 CPC includes ordinary​ ​Civil Courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction, and their final decisions on issues (including title in​ ​injunction suits) operate as​​res judicata​​in subsequent​​higher civil suits →​​Harmonious​ ​Construction.​ ​Analysis​ ​ ecause "Court of limited jurisdiction" under Explanation VIII CPC encompasses ordinary Civil​ B ​Courts with limited pecuniary jurisdiction, the District Munsif’s prior finding that "K" possessed​ ​only a life-estate was binding. This finding operated as res judicata to bar the appellant from​ ​challenging the respondent’s vested remainder in the subsequent title suit​ ​Conclusion​ ​19. Church of South India Trust vs Telugu Church Council​ ​ he previous court need not have to have territorial competency to try the subsequent suit for res judicata​ T ​to apply in the subsequent suit.​ ​Facts​ I​ n 1947, the original Telugu Church Council (TCC) voted by a two-thirds majority to merge into the​ ​newly formed Church of South India (CSI). The CSI Trust Association (CSITA) took over​ ​ anagement of the church properties. Years later, a breakaway faction registered a new society​ m ​using the old "TCC" name and filed lawsuits claiming the 1947 merger was invalid and that they​ ​owned the regional church properties. A prior 1976 judgment by the Madras High Court had​ ​already upheld the validity of the merger.Can a breakaway faction file fresh lawsuits over property​ ​ownership when a competent court has already ruled on the validity of the underlying merger, or is​ ​the suit barred by​​res judicata​​(Section 11 of the​​Civil Procedure Code)?​ ​Issue​ ​ hether lack of territorial jurisdiction in the court whihc had decided the earlier suit to try the​ W ​subsequent suit excludes the applicability of sec 11 CPC?​ ​Rule​ ​ he previous court need not have to have territorial competency to try the subsequent suit for res​ T ​judicata to apply in the subsequent suit.​ ​Analysis​ ​ court’s competency to decide a primary issue (like the validity of a merger) applies globally to the​ A ​parties, even if subsequent lawsuits involve properties located outside that court's strict territorial​ ​jurisdiction.​ ​ he Supreme Court observed that the core dispute—the validity of the 1947 merger—had already​ T ​been conclusively decided by the Madras High Court in 1976. Because the original TCC legally​ ​merged into the CSI, the original council ceased to exist, and the new breakaway faction had no​ ​legal right to recreate it or claim its historical assets. Allowing them to file new suits in different​ ​districts would violate the principle of finality in litigation.​ ​ he Supreme Court ruled in favor of the​​Church of​​South India Trust Association​​. The​ T ​court held that the breakaway TCC's claims were strictly barred by​​res judicata​​, confirming​ ​that the CSI Trust retains lawful ownership of the disputed church properties.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Appeal dismissed.​ s​ o basically the decision of the previous court will be res judicata for the subsequent suit irrespective of​ ​whether the previous court had pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try such subsequent suit, it only needs​ ​to have subject matter jurisdiction for res judicata to apply to the subsequent suit.​ ​-​ ​Sulochana removes - pecuniary competency and Also subject matter​ ​-​ ​Church removes - territorial​ ​This rests on the principle in Daryao vs UP​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​ inality for the parties​ F ​Finality for public resources​ a​ fter Explanation VIII and Church of South India, competence under Section 11 no longer means competence​ ​to try the subsequent suit in any of its pecuniary, territorial or subject-matter dimensions; it means that the​ ​earlier court was competent to decide the issue it in fact decided.​ ​ OTTOM LINE - IF THE PREVIOUS SUIT WAS DECIDED BY A COMPETENT COURT BETWEEN​ B ​THE SAME PARTIES THEN IT WILL BE CONSIDERED AS FINAL AND WILL NOT BE​ ​REAGITATAED.​ ​ he ‘competent to try subsequent suit’ part of section 11 is effectively rendered redundant. → The requirement​ T ​of a competent forum is still there; it has simply been relocated from competence over the subsequent suit to​ ​competence over the question decided.​ ​Session 11: “Same Parties”, “Same title” & “Finally heard and Decided”​ J​ ourney and probable steps in suit​ ​Order 2 Rule 2​ ​Dismissal in limine (at the threshold, outright dismissal)​ ​-​ ​Limitation​ ​-​ ​Jurisdiction​ ​-​ ​Procedural inconsistency → stamps, valuation​ ​-​ ​Absence of a Substantial Question of Law​ ​-​ ​No cause of action - the remedy sought does not match the facts​ ​-​ ​Indian courts have held that a dismissal in limine, when not based on the merits of the​ ​case, does not operate as res judicata and does not bar fresh proceedings → because​ ​dismissal in limine does not involve active engagement by both the parties (finally heard​ ​and decided). Outright dismissal does not go through the process involved in a trial.​ ​-​ ​Dismissal in limine does not operate as res judicata if the dismissal was not on the merits of​ ​the case.​ ​-​ ​TEST for same title → Whether the parties could have raised the same issue in the previous​ ​suit as the title subsequently?​ ​-​ ​Yes → same title → res judicata applies​ ​-​ ​No → different title → res judicata doesnt apply​ ​20. Sunderabai v. Devaji Shankar Deshpande​ ​-​ ​Same title case​ ​Facts​ ​ underabai and Gangabai disputed ancestral family property after Gangabai adopted Devaji in​ S ​1934.In 1937, they signed a court-approved compromise decree to end the dispute.Devaji declared​ ​his adoption invalid and surrendered all property rights.Sunderabai paid Devaji a massive cash​ ​settlement of ₹8,000 to walk away.In 1943, Gangabai adopted Devaji again, and he filed a new​ ​lawsuit for the property.​ ​Issue​ ​Whether a consent/compromise decree passed in a former suit operates as res judicata?​ ​Rule​ ​ est for same title - whether the claim put forward in the second suit could have been put forward in​ T ​the first?​ ​Analysis​ ​-​ b​ ecause the capacity and right claimed in both suits were identical (as the adopted​ ​son of Shankar), he was litigating under the same title regardless of relying on a​ ​later adoption transaction​ ​-​ ​nder Section 11 of the CPC, the statutory bar of​​res​​judicata​​does not strictly apply​ ​to consent decrees because the issues are not "heard and finally decided" on the​ ​merits. However, a consent decree raises an estoppel between the parties that has the​ ​same binding effect as​​res judicata​ ​Conclusion​ ​Suit dismissed​ ​21. Daryao vs State of UP​ ​ es judicata applies to writ petition of the HC when a fresh suit on the same facts and for the relief is filed​ R ​in the SC.​ ​Facts​ ​ enants in U.P., having lost before the Board of Revenue in their ejectment proceedings, moved the​ T ​Allahabad High Court under Article 226, where the petition was dismissed because counsel did not​ ​press it in view of a binding Full Bench ruling. After the time for an appeal under Article 136 had​ ​lapsed, they filed a petition under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same relief. The​ ​respondents raised the preliminary objection of res judicata, and six such petitions were heard​ ​together on that common question.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226 by a High Court operates as res judicata​ W ​so as to bar a subsequent petition under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same relief?​ ​Rule​ ​ final judgment on the merits dismissing a writ petition under Article 226 operates as res judicata​ A ​and bars a subsequent, original petition under Article 32 based on the same facts and reliefs.​ ​Analysis​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​Conclusion​ ​ he Court reasoned that res judicata is not a technical rule but rests on public policy, so it​ T ​cannot be excluded merely because fundamental rights are asserted, and the binding force​ ​of a competent court's judgment is itself part of the rule of law.​ ​The objection that the High Court could not have entertained an Article 32 petition failed,​ ​because its jurisdiction under Article 226 is substantially concurrent in cause of action and​ ​relief, and in any event that Section 11 condition is not an essential part of the general​ ​doctrine.​ ​Applying this, a dismissal on the merits bars a later Article 32 petition, whereas dismissal​ ​for laches, for an alternative remedy, as withdrawn, or in limine without a speaking order​ ​does not.​ ​Plaint dismissed.​ ​Session 12: Res- subjudice​ ​-​ ​ he principle of res sub-judice prevents the court from proceeding with the trial of any suit in​ T ​which the matter in issue is directly or substantially the same with the previously instituted suit​ ​between the same parties and the court where the issue is previously instituted is pending has the​ ​power to grant the relief sought.​ ​-​ ​ his rule is applicable to the trial of the suit and not the institution. It does not restrict the court​ T ​from passing interim orders like injunction or stay. However, it applies to revisions and appeals.​ ​-​ ​ est→​ ​whether the decision in a former given suit​​would operate as res judicata(decided case) in​ T ​the subsequent suit. It this happens, then the latter suit must be stayed​ ​22. Aspijal vs Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor​ ​Facts​ ​ he landlords of a Mumbai building filed two eviction suits in the Small Causes Court in 2004​ T ​against their tenant, one on bona fide requirement and acquisition of alternate accommodation, the​ ​other on non-user of the flat for several years before that suit. While those were pending, they filed​ ​a third suit in 2010 seeking eviction on the ground of non-user for a continuous period of not less​ ​than six months immediately preceding that suit. The tenant applied under Section 10 CPC to stay​ ​the third suit; the trial court stayed it and the Bombay High Court affirmed, whereupon the​ ​landlords appealed.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the matter in issue in the third suit was directly and substantially in issue in the previously​ W ​instituted suits, so as to attract the mandatory stay under Section 10.​ ​Rule​ ​ ection 10 applies only where the entire subject matter of the two suits is identical, the test being​ S ​whether a final decision in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata in the later one; a mere​ ​commonality of some issues does not suffice.​ ​Analysis​ ​ he question the Court posed was: if the earlier suit is dismissed, can the plaintiff still get the same​ T ​relief in the later suit? An affirmative answer is the reason not to stay, not a reason to stay. If success​ ​in the later suit survives failure in the earlier one, the two suits are not really the same litigation at​ ​all; they rest on different foundations and can stand or fall independently. It is only when the answer​ ​is negative → when dismissal of the first would necessarily sink the second, because the decision in​ ​the first would operate as res judicata , that Section 10 is attracted and the stay becomes mandatory.​ ​ unlop​​India​​Ltd.​​v.​​A.A​​Rahna​​(2011)​​:​​Highlighted​​that​​even​ ​●​ D ​if​ ​similar​ ​grounds​ ​are​ ​cited​ ​in​ ​multiple​ ​suits,​ ​differing​ ​factual​ ​circumstances can render Section 10 inapplicable.​ ​ unlop India Ltd. v. A.A Rahna (2011): Highlighted that even if similar grounds are cited in​ D ​multiple suits, differing factual circumstances can render Section 10 inapplicable.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Appeal dismissed.​ ​Session 13: Foreign Judgment​ ​Introduction​ ​​ A ■ ​ foreign Judgement means an adjudication by a foreign court upon a matter before it.​ ​■​ ​The Judgement of a foreign court is enforced on the principle that where a court of​ ​competent jurisdiction has adjudicated upon a claim, a legal obligation arises to satisfy​ ​that claim.​ ​Foreign Judgement​ ​■​ S ​ ection 2(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) defines foreign Judgement. It​ ​states that foreign Judgement means the Judgement of a foreign Court.​ ​■​ ​As per Section 2(5) of CPC, a foreign Court means a Court situated outside India and not​ ​established or continued by the authority of the Central Government.​ ​23. Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi​ ​Facts​ ​ he parties married at Tirupati in 1975 under Hindu law and separated in 1978. The husband,​ T ​having earlier filed a divorce petition at Tirupati, obtained a decree of dissolution from the Circuit​ ​Court of St. Louis County, Missouri in 1980; that court assumed jurisdiction on the footing that he​ ​had resided in Missouri for ninety days, and granted divorce on the ground of irretrievable​ ​breakdown. The wife never appeared, filed replies from India expressly under protest disputing​ ​jurisdiction, and the decree was passed in her absence, the foreign court itself noting it had no​ j​urisdiction in personam over her. The husband then withdrew the Tirupati petition, remarried in​ ​1981, and when prosecuted for bigamy sought discharge on the strength of the Missouri decree. The​ ​Magistrate discharged him; the High Court set that aside on the narrow ground that a photostat copy​ ​of the decree was inadmissible.​ ​issue​ ​ hether the Missouri decree was conclusive under Section 13 CPC so as to dissolve the marriage,​ W ​and on what principles Indian courts should recognise foreign matrimonial judgments.​ ​Ratio​ ​ foreign matrimonial decree is recognized in India only if the jurisdiction assumed and the​ A ​grounds of relief match the personal law under which the parties married​ ​Analysis​ ​ he Supreme Court analyzed the statutory exceptions that prevent a foreign judgment from​ T ​being conclusive in India:​ ​●​ ​Competent Jurisdiction [Sec. 13(a)]: A foreign court is competent​​only​​if recognized​ ​as such by the specific personal law under which the marriage was celebrated, or if​ ​both parties voluntarily and unconditionally submit to its jurisdiction.​ ​●​ ​On the Merits [Sec. 13(b)]: The decision must be rendered on a ground available​ ​under the parties' personal law and must result from an active contest. A reply filed​ ​under protest does not constitute a submission to jurisdiction.​ ​●​ ​Defiance/Breach of Indian Law [Sec. 13(c) & (f)]: Marriages celebrated in India are​ ​governed by the law under which they took place. A foreign decree granted on an​ ​unrecognized ground (like "irretrievable breakdown") directly defies and breaches​ ​Indian matrimonial law.​ ​●​ ​Natural Justice [Sec. 13(d)]: Audi alteram partem requires an effective opportunity​ ​to contest. If a foreign court fails to ensure the respondent can defend themselves​ ​(such as requiring the petitioner to fund their travel, lodging, and litigation costs),​ ​the proceedings violate natural justice.​ ​●​ ​Fraud [Sec. 13(e)]: A foreign decree is invalid if obtained by active​ ​misrepresentation of jurisdictional facts (such as falsifying residence duration to​ ​manufacture jurisdiction)​ ​Conclusion​ ​ he foreign decree was held unenforceable and not conclusive; the appeal was dismissed and the​ T ​Magistrate directed to proceed with the bigamy prosecution expeditiously.​ ​After the technicalities are done, now comes:​ ​INSTITUTION OF SUIT​ ​ odule 6: Parties to suit, Frame of suit and Recognized​ M ​Agents & Pleaders​ ​-​ ​ s. 26 - 35B and order 1 - 20 deal with procedure relating to suits. Orders 1 [parties to suit], order​ S ​2 [frame of suit] and order 4 [institution of suit].​ ​-​ ​ uit has not been defined in the code, → a suit is a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation​ S ​of a plaint.​ ​Essential of Suit​ ​-​ ​Opposing parties​ ​-​ ​Subject matter in dispute​ ​-​ ​Cause of action​ ​-​ ​Relief​ ​-​ ​Session 14: Parties to the suit - ORDER 1​ ​Order 1 - who may be joined as a party​ ​-​ ​Provides for addition , deletion, substitution, joinder, non joinder and mis joinder of parties and​ ​objections to misjoinder / non joinder.​ ​-​ ​Joinder of causes of action​ ​-​ ​Representative suits​ ​Plaint → private memorial given to the court which sets forth the plainitff’s cause of action.​ ​-​ ​Rule 1 -​​joinder of plaintiffs​​[​conjunctive condition​​‘AND’​​]​ ​-​ ​Right to relief arises out of same transaction/acts → nexus between the parties​ ​-​ ​Common ques of law and facts alleged by the parties → common interest​ ​-​ ​Rule 3 -​​joinder of defendants​​[​conjunctive condition​​‘AND’​​] - same as joinder of plaintiff.​ ​-​ ​Rule 9 -​​non joinder/misjoinder of parties.​ ​-​ ​suit cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of non joinder and misjoinder of parties​ ​[proper] →​​does not apply to Necessary parties. [​​kanakrathnammal​​case​​]​ ​-​ ​Rule 10 -​​striking out of parties, additing, substituting.​ ​-​ ​[1] addition/ substitution of plaintiff allowed IF: [​​conjunctive​​]​ ​-​ ​it is filed in the name of a wrong person​ ​-​ ​based on a bona fide mistake.​ ​-​ ​substitution/additon is necessary for the determination of the real matter in​ ​dispute​ ​-​ ​[2] Striking out :​ ​-​ ​At any stage of the proceedings​ ​-​ ​Either through application or suo moto​ ​-​ ​Conditions of [1] applies​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ EST applied by court : whether presence of such party is required for full and complete​ T ​adjudication of the dispute.​ ​Rule 13 -​​Objections as to non-joinder/misjoinder​​of parties​ ​-​ ​Must be taken at the earliest opportunity → otherwise deemed to have been waived​ ​-​ ​If raised at earlier stage but declined by the plaintiff, then plaintiff cannot rectify it by​ ​applying for amendment. [​​Kanakthammal case​​].​ ​Rule 8 -​​representative suits​ ​-​ ​Exception to the general principle where all the necessary parties have to be joined.​ ​-​ ​Applied when multiple parties gave the same interest in the suit​ ​-​ ​With permission of the court OR direction of the court.​ ​-​ ​A 'representative suit' is a suit filed by or against one or more persons on behalf of​ ​themselves and others having the same interest in the suit.​ ​-​ ​The representative in their individual capacity must have a​​locus standi​​to bring the​ ​claim, without which they cannot take recourse to rule 8. → there is not obligation to​ ​represent all the parties if an individual claim is maintabke without clubbing all the​ ​parties together. [​​TN housing case​​]​ ​24 . Kasturi vs Iyyamperumal​ ​ ecesaary and Proper parties test​ N ​Plaintiff is dominius litis - and cannot be forced to go against the persons they dont wanna go.​ ​Facts​ ​ lainitff bought a suit for specific performance of a sales contract for a house, Respondent 1​ P ​and 4-11, filed an application for joinder of parties claiming an​​independent title​​over the​ ​property. The contract of sale was between the plaintiff and Respondent 3 but not with the​ ​remaining respondents.​ ​Trial court - allowed application​ ​Hc - upheld trial court’s decision​ ​SC- appeal under SLP.​ ​Issue​ ​Whether the respondents were a necessary and/or proper party to the suit ?​ ​Rule/test​ ​Necessary party:​ ​-​ ​Right to relief test​ ​-​ ​Effective Decree test​ ​Proper Party:​ ​Analysis​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​Conclusion​ ​ he Court held that Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 completely failed both tests.​ T ​They were not parties to the contract, nor did they purchase the property from the​ ​vendor after the contract was executed. An effective decree for specific performance​ ​could easily be passed in their absence, and such a decree would simply not bind​ ​them.​ ​Expanding the scope: llowing a third party to join on the basis of an independent​ ​adverse title would enlarge the scope of the litigation and impermissibly convert a​ ​suit for specific performance into a complicated suit for title and possession.​ ​Dominius Litis - The plaintiff cannot be forced to add and fight parties against whom​ ​he does not wish to seek relief.​ ​Application of joinder dismissed, suit was for performance of contract and not a title suit.​ ​25. Kanakarathanammal vs. VS Loganatha Mudaliar​ ​Non joinder of necessary party renders the suit dismissed/ bad even when the suit in itself is not invalid.​ ​Facts​ ​ he plaintiff, Kanakarathanammal, sued to recover possession of family properties as the sole heir​ T ​of her mother, Rajambal, who died intestate in 1946. The primary property was purchased in 1942​ ​under a registered sale deed in the mother's name, though the entire purchase money of Rs. 28,000​ ​was provided by the father. During his lifetime, the father wrote letters explicitly treating and​ ​acknowledging the mother as the absolute owner of the estate. The defendants asserted that the​ ​father was the real owner because the purchase was benami. Alternatively, they argued that if the​ ​property belonged to the mother, it devolved jointly on the plaintiff and her living brothers as​ ​co-heirs, meaning the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties​ ​Issue​ ​Whether non-joinder of necessary party turns a suit bad therefore allowing dismissal?​ ​Rule​ ​ nder O1 R 9, a suit cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of non joinder/mis joinder but this​ U ​is only confined to ‘proper parties’ and not ‘necessary parties’. Failure to implead necessary​ ​parties will render the suit liable to be dismissed.​ ​Analysis​ ​ ecause​​the​​estate​​co-devolved​​on​​the​​appellant​​and​​her​​brothers​​jointly,​​the​​majority​​applied​​the​ B ​procedural rules of the CPC to the facts:​ ​1.​ ​Character of the Suit: A suit brought by a co-heir to recover joint family property partakes​ ​of the character of a partition suit. An individual co-heir cannot claim independent​ ​recovery or relief against third parties; the entire estate must be represented, meaning all​ ​co-heirs must be party to the suit.​ ​2.​ ​The "Necessary Party" Exception: While Order 1 Rule 9 states that a suit should not be​ ​defeated by non-joinder, this rule is strictly confined to "proper parties". It does not protect​ ​a suit where necessary parties (such as the co-heir brothers in a joint estate suit) are​ ​omitted. Their non-joinder is an incurably fatal defect.​ ​3.​ ​Timing of Joinder under Rule 10: Although Order 1 Rule 10(2) allows the court to​ ​implead necessary parties, the majority ruled that this power is discretionary and can only​ ​be exercised at the trial stage, so as not to prejudice the opposite party's right to raise the​ ​defense of limitation​ ​Conslusion​ ​ uit dismissed for the lack of joinder [non joinder] and could not be amended at the appellate​ S ​stage.​ ​Session 15: Parties to the suit​ ​26. TN Housing Board vs TN Ganapathy​ ​Representative suit​ ​Facts​ r​ esidential buildings were allotted by the Housing Board to the applicants who belonged to the​ ​low-income group, After settlement of price, excess demand was made by the Board. The allottees​ ​challenged the demand by filing a suit in a representative capacity. It was contended that such a suit​ ​in a representative capacity was not maintainable as separate demand notices were issued against​ ​each of the allottees, giving rise to separate causes of action.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether a representative suit was maintainable even when there is no similarity in the cause of​ W ​action?​ ​Rule​ I​ f the parties have the​​same interest​​in the suit,​​then the representative suit is maintainable​ ​irrespective of whether the same cause of action/ same transaction was not present.​ ​Conditions needed for representative suit to be estd: [​​conjunctive​​]​ ​-​ ​numerous parties [decided by the court]​ ​-​ ​same interest [community of interest] → cause of action or same transaction not​ ​always needed -​​this particular case talks about this.​ ​-​ ​Permission granted/ direction ordered [sufficient community of interest : application of​ ​mind and not a mechanical process based solely on the averments made in the plaint]​ ​-​ ​Notice issued to the parties who will represent/​ ​Analysis​ ​Conclusion​ ​Session 16: Frame of Suit and Recognised Pleaders & Agents​ ​-​ ​-​ ​Order II​ ​-​ ​rule I → The framing of the suit should be covered in a manner that encompasses all the​ ​cause of action and the relief claimed. – as far as practicable.​ ​-​ ​rule 2 → include all the claims that the plaintiff is entitled, if he omits/intentionally​ ​relinquishes any portion of the his claim, then it will operate as​​constructive res judicata.​ ​-​ ​No splitting of claims OR splitting of remedies.​ ​-​ ​In order for this to kick in, there has to be evidence to be led and the defendant​ ​has to bring in the plaint from the previous suit as a part of cause of action. →​ ​gurbux.​ ​-​ ​Rule 3,6 → joinder of causes of action​ ​-​ ​plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same​ ​defendant, or the same defendants jointly for the same cause of action.​ ​-​ ​Same transaction​ ​-​ ​Common question of law or fact​ ​Order III - Agents and Pleaders -​ ​-​ ​Appearance, application or act to any court may be made by​ ​-​ ​(i) party in person R1​ ​-​ ​(ii) by his agent R2​ ​-​ ​(iii)by a pleader acting on his behalf. R4 → 2(15) - pleaders mean​​inter alia​ ​power of attorney, vakil or an attorney​ ​-​ ​Rule 2 -​​recognised agents​ ​-​ ​Expressed or implied authority to act on behalf of another person​ ​-​ ​Rule 4 -​​pleader​ ​-​ ​As pleaders, can only plead at the instructions of the client whom one is​ ​representing.​ ​-​ ​Appointed through​​vakalatnama​ ​-​ ​Privileges of pleader [right to represent client]​ ​-​ ​Sign on behalf​ ​-​ ​Receive notice​ ​-​ ​Ask for records of court​ ​-​ ​-​ ​The parties cannot presume pleaders/agents in appeal stage.​ ​-​ ​Recognised​ ​agent:​​the​​holder​​of​​a​​power​​of​​attorney,​​or​​a​​person​​carrying​​on​​trade​​for​​a​ ​party absent from the local limits.​ ​-​ ​A​​pleader​​must​​file​​a​​vakalatnama.​​The​​appointment​​continues​​until​​determined​​by​​leave​ ​of the court, by death, or in writing filed in court.​ ​-​ ​An agent may act and apply, but the court may still require the party to appear in person.​ ​27. Gurbux Singh vs Bhooralal​ ​Order 2 rule 2​ ​Facts​ ​ he respondent, Bhooralal, filed Civil Suit against the appellant, Gurbux Singh, seeking​ T ​possession and mesne profits of a property.The plaint referenced a previous suit filed by the​ ​respondent and his mother, in which they successfully recovered mesne profits for the same​ ​property. The appellant raised a technical defense under Order 2, Rule 2 , arguing that because​ ​the respondent omitted to sue for possession in the 1950 suit, he was barred from doing so​ ​now. [claiming splitting of relief] but the appellant failed to file the plaint or pleadings of the​ ​1950 suit into the evidentiary record of the trial court.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether a technical plea of a bar under Order 2, Rule 2 CPC can be established or sustained​ W ​by a court in the absence of the actual plaint/pleadings of the prior suit on the record?​ ​Rule​ ​Analysis​ ​●​ T ​ he Identity of Cause of Action: To succeed under Order 2, Rule 2(3) CPC, the​ ​defendant must prove that both suits are based on the same cause of action.​ ​●​ ​Strict Proof Required: Because Order 2, Rule 2 is a highly technical bar, it must be​ ​established satisfactorily and cannot be presumed on the basis of deduction or​ ​inferential reasoning.​ ​●​ ​Plaint as Primary Evidence: The "cause of action" represents the specific facts the​ ​plaintiff previously alleged to support their claim. Without placing the actual plaint of​ ​the first suit on the record, a court cannot speculate or infer what those facts were​ ​based on casual references or legal labels (such as "mesne profits") in the second suit​ ​Conclusion​ ​28. Hema Khattar vs Shiv Khera​ ​ ontinuous Transaction​​- ORDER 2 RULE 3​ C ​[Written Contract with Arbitration Clause] + [Modifying Oral Contract]= [Continuous Transaction] =​ ​[Valid Joinder under CPC]​ ​Facts​ ​●​ A ​ ppellant No. 1 (Hema Khattar) contracted with the Respondent (Shiv​ ​Khera) on June 6, 2009, to reconstruct a Delhi building.​ ​●​ ​Following inspections that revealed structural defects, the Respondent issued​ ​a legal notice and initiated arbitration under the contract.​ ​●​ ​The Appellants (wife and husband) claimed a subsequent oral agreement in​ ​April 2011 terminated the written contract and substituted the husband​ ​(Appellant No. 2) to supervise construction.​ ​●​ ​The Appellants jointly sued the Respondent to declare the written contract​ ​null/terminated, block the arbitration, and recover Rs. 45.5 lakhs spent by​ ​the husband under the oral agreement. → recovery of money, injuction and​ ​declarations​ ​●​ ​The Respondent moved a Section 8 (AnC) application to refer the matter to​ ​arbitration, while the High Court held the suit bad for misjoinder of parties​ ​and causes of action, forcing the Appellants to choose between their claims​ ​●​ ​SLP filed under SC.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether a subsequent oral agreement is considered as a part of ‘same transaction’ or is a​ W ​different cause of action resulting into misjoinder of parties?​ ​Rule​ ​ n oral agreement modifying a written contract is a continuous transaction that​ A ​permits the joint joinder of parties and causes of action.​ ​Analysis​ ​ ven though the cause of action was different, there was a nexus between the cause of​ E ​action, being the continuity of the agreement from the previous contract.​ ​●​ T ​ he Rule of Continuity: The Court reviewed the transcript of recorded​ ​conversations between Appellant No. 2 and the Respondent. It found that the​ ​subsequent oral agreement​​was not a separate transaction,​​but rather a direct,​ ​seamless continuity and substitution of the original written agreement.​ ​●​ ​IUnder the oral agreement, the written contract was terminated and​ ​performance was substituted, allowing the husband (A2) to step in and​ ​complete the pending construction work of his wife (A1).​ ​●​ ​Because t​​he claims arose out of a continuous series​​of transactions​​with​ ​overlapping facts, both appellants were jointly interested​ ​Conclusion​ ​he joint suit was fully maintainable​ ​Class notes -​ ​-​ ​The relationship between the plaint and the written statement​ ​-​ ​The pleading has to provide all the facts that the defendants have to answer​ ​-​ ​Written statement​ ​-​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​ enial of the fact averred in the plaint → mere denial isnt good enough, there has to be​ D ​an alternative narrative/plea of the same events.​ ​Has to answer​​all​​the material facts averred in the​​plaint.​ ​Omission to rebut a fact will amount to admission [both will be applicable]​ ​Module 7: Institution of Suits, Pleadings & Summons​ ​Session 17: Institution of Suit and Pleadings​ ​Section 26, Order 4 and Order 6 of CPC​ ​ rder 4​ O ​Institution of suit​ ​ rder 6​ O ​Pleadings generally​ ​ nly 2 rules​ O ​ 8 rules [only including imp ones]​ 1 ​1. Suit to be commenced by plaint.—​ ​1)​ ​Pleadings​ ​(​1​)​​Every suit shall be instituted by presenting​​3[plaint​ ​2)​ ​Fundamental principles of pleading​ ​in duplicate to the Court] or such officer as it appoints in​ ​3)​ ​- (13) - necessary particulars​ ​this behalf.​ ​ 4) & (15) - signing and verification of pleadings​ 1 ​(​2​)​​Every plaint shall comply with the rules​​contained in​ ​16) - striking of unnecessary pleadings.​ ​Orders VI and VII, so far as they are​ ​17) and 18) amendment of pleadings​ ​Applicable.​ ​(​3​) The plaint shall not be deemed to be duly​​instituted​ ​unless it complies with the requirements​ ​specified in sub-rules (​​1​) and (​​2​)]​​.​ ​ . Register of suits.—​​The​​Court shall cause the particulars​ 2 ​of every suit to be entered in a book to be kept for the​ ​purpose and called the register of civil suits. Such entries​ ​shall be numbered​​in every year according to the order​​in​ ​which the plaints are admitted.​ ​Key Concepts to be discussed​ ​​ ● ​●​ ​●​ ​●​ ​ rocedure for institution of suit​ P ​What is meant by pleadings​ ​Cardinal rules of pleading​ ​Alternate and inconsistent pleadings​ ​Procedure for institution of suit​ ​-​ P ​ laint by plaintiff [or pleader, agent, authorised person] → to the court[non fixed time]​ ​→ scrutnized by registrar of stamps→ if defects then corrected → suit numbered in​ ​register of civil suits.​ ​-​ ​Plaint - a private memorial tendered to a court in which a person sets forth his cause of​ ​action; the exhibition of an action in writing.​ ​-​ ​Every suit must be instituted by the presentation of a plaint.​ ​Pleadings​ ​-​ ​Plaint or written statement → statement of claims, facts and defences.​ ​-​ ​Plaintiff - plaint → all cause of action​ ​-​ ​Defendant - written statement → deals with every material fact alleged by the plaintiff in​ ​the plaint, and/or any new facts which are in his favour.​ ​Rules of pleading​ ​-​ ​R2(1) pleadings should:​ ​-​ ​State facts and not law​ ​-​ ​Facts should be material​ ​-​ ​Should not state the evidence​ ​-​ ​Facts should be in concise form​ ​Alternate and inconsistent pleadings [​​praful rele​​case​​]​ ​-​ ​Alternative means → the one or the the other of two things – a choice where two or more​ ​sets of facts and reliefs in the alternative are claimed [arguendo] [​​srinivas case​​]​ ​-​ ​Inconsistent → mutually repugnant, contradictory or irreconcilable, acceptance of one​ ​implies abrogation of the other.​ ​-​ ​Must be interpreted liberally and regard must be had to the substance instead of the form​ ​of the matter. [​​ram swarup​​].​ ​Praful Rele case → the difference between an alternative plea and contradictory plea​ ​Facts​ ​ he plaintiff gave a gratuitous land to the defendant’s father out of goodwill and without any rent.​ T ​After the death of the father, his kids came to be in possession of the land. The plaintiff no longer felt​ ​the need to continue the land to be possessed in gratis by the kids and revoked the gratuitous license​ ​and sent a notice for vacant possession of the land to the defendants. The defendants did not comply​ ​with the notice and sent a reply saying that they were tenants and would therefore not vacant. The​ ​plaintiff filed a suit for possession asserting that license was no longer valid and they were not tenant.​ ​Alternatively he also pleaded to evict them from the land, under, bona fide need, in case they were​ ​held to be tenants.​ ​ H:​ P ​Tial court - dismissed the suit holding defendants to be tenants.​ ​District court : Overruled, and direcred possession of the land.​ ​HC: overruled district court’s direction, and dismissed the plea on the grounds that the pleadings​ ​raised were mutually contradictory.​​(i.e., claiming​​the defendants were gratuitous licensees while​ ​alternatively seeking eviction under the Rent Act).​ ​Issue​ ​ hether a plaintiff in a suit for possession can raise inconsistent or contradictory alternative pleas in​ W ​the plaint—specifically, claiming that the defendant is a gratuitous licensee and, alternatively, seeking​ ​eviction under the Rent Control Act, without invalidating the suit ?​ ​Rule​ ​ plaintiff is entitled to raise inconsistent alternative pleas in a suit, and if the primary claim (that the​ A ​defendant is a gratuitous licensee) is established on evidence, whether the alternative plea (seeking​ ​eviction under the Rent Act) was contradictory or inconsistent becomes insignificant.​ ​Analysis​ “​ parties may plead inconsistent facts or claim alternative reliefs, provided: there is no surprise or​ ​prejudice to the opposing party; the opposing party's admissions support the alternative case; justice is​ ​served by avoiding multiplicity of litigation.”​ ​●​ P ​ ermissibility of Inconsistent Alternative Pleas: The Code of Civil Procedure does not​ ​prohibit a party from making two or more inconsistent sets of allegations and claiming​ ​alternative reliefs.​ ​●​ ​Redundancy Upon Proof of Primary Claim: When the court accepts the plaintiff's​ ​primary case (that the defendants are gratuitous licensees whose license was​ ​terminated), the alternative plea becomes redundant, and whether it was inconsistent​ ​or contradictory pales into insignificance.​ ​●​ ​Erroneous High Court Approach: The High Court erred in dismissing the suit purely​ ​on the technicality of contradictory pleadings without setting aside or finding any​ ​error in the First Appellate Court's factual finding that the defendants were indeed​ ​gratuitous licensees.​ ​●​ ​No Prejudice to Defendants: The alternative plea caused no surprise or injustice to the​ ​defendants, as they had explicitly claimed tenancy in their written statement and fully​ ​contested the issue at trial​ ​Conclusion​ ​ hus, a suit for possession of property is maintainable on the basis of title or in the alternative on the​ T ​basis of lease.​ ​Srinivas Ram Kumar vs Mahabir Prasad​ ​Facts​ ​ he Plaintiff sued for specific performance, claiming an oral agreement to buy a house for ₹34,000,​ T ​having paid a ₹30,000 advance. The Defendants denied the sale agreement but admitted receiving​ ​₹30,000, claiming it was a loan at 6% interest. The Trial Court rejected the sale claim but granted a​ ​money decree for ₹30,000 based on the Defendant’s admission. The High Court reversed the money​ ​decree, ruling that the court could not grant a relief entirely absent from the Plaintiff’s pleadings.​ ​Issue​ ​ an a court grant the alternative relief to a plaintiff based on the defendant's explicit admission, even if​ C ​that relief contradicts the plaintiff’s original pleadings?​ ​Rule​ ​ hile a court generally cannot grant relief outside the plaintiff's case, it can do so if the defendant​ W ​clearly admits facts in their written statement that justify an alternative remedy, provided it causes no​ ​surprise or injustice to the defendant.​ ​Application​ ​ he Supreme Court observed that the Defendants explicitly admitted receiving ₹30,000 as a loan.​ T ​Since this fact was formally placed on record by the Defendants themselves, granting a money decree​ ​caused them no surprise or prejudice. Forcing the Plaintiff to file a separate lawsuit to recover the​ ​admitted debt would only result in an unnecessary multiplicity of legal proceedings, defeating the​ ​purpose of substantive justice.​ ​ rinivas Ram → four conditions where alternative plea is allowed​ S ​the plaintiff may rely on such pleading of the defendant and claim an alternate decree based thereon​ ​subject to four conditions being satisfied, viz.,​ ​(i) the statement of case by defendant in his written statement amounts to an express admission of the​ ​facts entitling the plaintiff to an alternative relief,​ ​(ii) in granting such relief the defendant is not taken by surprise,​ ​(iii) no injustice can possibly result to the defendant, and​ ​(iv) though the plaintiff would have been entitled to the same relief in a separate suit the interest of​ ​justice demand the plaintiff not being driven to the need of filing another suit."​ ​Conclusion​ ​ rinivas​ ​Ram​ ​Kumar​ ​-​ ​a​ ​court​ ​can​ ​grant​ ​alternative​ ​relief​ ​based​ ​on​ ​a​ ​defendant's​ ​admissions,​ ​even​ ​if​ ​the​ S ​plaintiff​ ​did​ ​not​ ​explicitly​ ​plead​ ​that​ ​alternative​ ​claim.​ ​→​ ​"The​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​such​ ​a​ ​prayer​ ​would​ ​have​ ​been​ ​inconsistent​ ​with​ ​the​ ​other​ ​prayer​ ​is​ ​not​ ​really​ ​material...An​ ​Appellant​ ​may​ ​rely​ ​upon​ ​different​ ​rights​ ​alternatively​​and​​there​​is​​nothing​​in​​the​​Code​​of​​Civil​​Procedure​​to​​prevent​​a​​party​​from​​making​​two​​or​​more​ ​inconsistent sets of allegations and claiming​ ​relief thereunder in the alternative."​ ​Ram​ ​swarup​ ​case​ ​→​ ​liberal​ ​construction​ ​and​ ​interpretation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​pleadings​ ​Ram​​Sarup​​Gupta​​vs​​Bishun​​Narain​​Inter​​Colleg​ ​→​​the​​issue​​is​​whether​​a​​court​​can​​reject​​a​​valid​​legal​​defense​​due​ t​o​ ​the​ ​omission​​of​​strict​​statutory​​language​​in​​pleadings.​​Under​​Section​​60(b)​​of​​the​​Easements​​Act​​and​ ​general​​pleading​​rules,​​civil​​pleadings​​must​​be​​construed​​liberally​​by​​substance​​rather​​than​​technical​​form.​ ​The​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​concluded​ ​that​​substantive​​justice​​outweighs​​technical​​pleading​​errors,​​holding​​that​ ​the school's license was irrevocable because the necessary facts were clearly established.​ ​Session 18: Pleadings​ ​Order 6 of CPC​ ​-​ ​Rule 7 →​​pleading inconsistent with each other are​​not permissible but courts have deviated from​ ​this rule.​ ​-​ ​Caveat under SAIL II - though inconsistent pleadings are allowed, they cannot be​ ​mutually destructive​ ​-​ ​Alternative and inconsistent pleadings (contd.)​ ​-​ ​Nothing in the Code stops the plaintiff from relying on several different reliefs in the​ ​alternative, or the defendant from raising several different defences in the alternative​ ​-​ ​Where relief can be founded on the alternative plea, it may be granted.​ ​-​ ​Pleadings are read as a whole. A passage cannot be culled out and read out of context.​ ​The intention of the party is gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of the pleading​ ​as a whole.​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ igning and verification – Rules 14, 14A, 15​ S ​A defect in signing or verification is a mere irregularity. It can be corrected later with leave of the​ ​court.​ ​A suit cannot be dismissed, and no order can be passed against a party, only because the plaint or​ ​written statement is defectively signed or verified.​ ​If an affidavit filed by a party is defective, the court gives an opportunity to file a proper one​ ​instead of rejecting it.​ ​Rule 14A requires a party to supply an address for service of notice. If the address is incomplete,​ ​false or fictitious, the court may stay the plaintiff’s suit or strike off the defendant’s defence.​ ​Striking out pleadings – Rule 16​ ​-​ ​The court may strike out a pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or​ ​which tends to prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial, or is otherwise an abuse of process. The​ ​rule rests on ex debito justitiae.​ ​-​ ​Rule 16 as covering three situations:​ ​-​ ​pleading unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;​ ​-​ ​pleading tending to prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial;​ ​-​ ​pleading otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.​ ​-​ ​A court does not normally tell parties how to draft. It interferes only where the​ ​rules of pleading have been offended. The power is extraordinary and is to be​ ​used sparingly, with care, caution and circumspection.​ ​Variance between pleading and proof – Rule 2​ ​-​ ​A party may lead evidence only on the case he has pleaded. He cannot set up a case inconsistent​ ​with his pleading. No amount of proof can substitute for pleadings.​ ​-​ ​Twofold purpos​​e:​ ​-​ ​to tell the opposite party exactly what case he has to answer so he is not taken by​ ​surprise,​ ​-​ ​to keep an accurate record of the cause of action as protection against a second​ ​proceeding on the same allegations.​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ party can succeed only on what he has pleaded and proved. Changing the case at trial invites​ A ​surprise and confusion and is viewed with disfavour and suspicion.​ ​Not every variance is fatal. Where there is a foundation in the pleading, or where the other side is​ ​neither surprised nor prejudiced, relief will not be denied.​ ​Where parties are aware of the controversy and go to trial knowing a particular question is in​ ​issue, the absence of a specific pleading is a mere irregularity.​ ​A pure question of law, or of jurisdiction, can be raised at any stage.​ ​Objection to pleading​ ​-​ ​An objection to a pleading must be taken at the earliest. If it is not raised at the appropriate stage​ ​it is deemed waived, because prejudice cannot be said to have been caused to a party who raises​ ​the plea belatedly.​ ​AMENDMENT TO THE PLEADING – Rules 17 and 18​ ​-​ ​Rule 17: the court may at any stage allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such​ ​manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be​ ​necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.​ ​-​ ​Proviso : no amendment application shall be allowed after the trial has commenced,​ ​unless the court concludes that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised​ ​the matter before the commencement of trial.​ ​-​ ​Object​​–​ ​-​ ​courts should try the merits of the case, so all amendments necessary to determine the​ ​real controversy should be allowed provided they cause no injustice or prejudice to the​ ​other side.​ ​-​ ​Ordinarily the court should not refuse a bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary​ ​amendment. Equally, it should not allow a mala fide, dishonest or unnecessary one.​ ​-​ ​full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and liberally exercised, but no power exists to​ ​substitute one distinct cause of action for another, or to change the subject-matter of the​ ​suit by way of amendment.​ ​All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions​ ​-​ ​(a) of not working injustice to another side, and​ ​-​ ​(b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between​ ​the parties → If the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy it should be allowed​ ​even if the court thinks the party may not be able to prove the amended plea.​ ​-​ ​no amendment causing injustice to the opposite party. But there is no injustice if the other​ ​side can be compensated by costs.​ ​-​ ​Typically allowed –​ ​-​ ​to avoid multiplicity of suits;​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ -​ ​ ​-​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ -​ ​ ​-​ -​ ​ ​where parties are wrongly described;​ ​-​ ​where properties are omitted by inadvertence;​ ​-​ ​mistake in stating the cause of action;​ ​-​ ​bona fide omission of a necessary averment;​ ​-​ ​suit brought under a wrong Act;​ ​-​ ​consequential relief;​ ​-​ ​notice of subsequent events;​ ​-​ ​formal amendments;​ ​-​ ​clarifying pleadings;​ ​-​ ​correcting misdescription of parties.​ ​Who may apply​​– plaintiff or defendant. Where there​​are several plaintiffs or defendants, one or​ ​more of them may apply.​ ​Who may grant​​– ordinarily the trial court, but an​​appellate or revisional court may also, and so​ ​may the Supreme Court in an appropriate case.​ ​ otice to the opposite party is required.​​An order​​granting amendment without hearing the other​ N ​side is not valid, unless the amendment is purely formal or technical.​ ​The court must apply its mind and record reasons for allowing or refusing.​ ​Leave may be granted at any stage:​​before, at or after​​trial, in first appeal, second appeal, revision,​ ​before the Supreme Court, and even in execution.​​Amendment​​applications are not governed by​ ​any law of limitation.​ ​Notice is mandatory unless the amendment is purely formal/technical.​ ​The court must apply its mind and provide reasoned decisions.​ ​Leave can be granted at any stage (trial, appeal, revision, execution) and is not subject to​ ​limitation.​ ​Rule 17 is non-exhaustive; inherent powers under Section 151 apply where Rule 17 does not.​ ​Rule 17 applies to execution, insolvency, arbitration, election, land acquisition, and claim​ ​petitions.​ ​Core Principles Governing Amendment:​ ​-​ ​Allow amendments necessary to decide real controversies and minimize litigation.​ ​-​ ​Do not substitute the original cause of action or allow mutually destructive/contradictory​ ​allegations against admitted facts.​ ​-​ ​Do not cause uncompensable prejudice or defeat rights accrued to the opposing party through​ ​time-barred claims.​ ​-​ ​Compensate delay with costs; do not reject non-fraudulent errors/mistakes or penalize​ ​technicalities.​ ​-​ ​These principles are illustrative, not exhaustive.​ ​ ule 18​​→ states that if a court gives a party permission​​to amend their pleading, the party must make the​ R ​changes within the time limit set by the court​ ​-​ ​ pecified Time:​​If the court sets a specific time​​frame in the order, the amendment must be done​ S ​within that time.​ ​-​ ​ efault Time:​​If the court does not set a specific time frame, the party must make the​ D ​amendment within​​14 days​​from the date of the order​ ​29. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India​​(Order 6 Rule 17)​ ​ mendment of pleadings – not allowed if it substantially changes a judicial admission by way of​ A ​pleading.​ ​Facts​ ​ he employees represented by a Union, were initially employed by the independent​ T ​contractors who themselves were hired to provide employment for SAIL for steel works​ ​under certain statute [contract labour act].These workers started demanding permanent​ ​absorption under SAIL.​ ​In the initial forums, they pleaded that the were explicitly representing​​contract workers.​ ​In the later forums, they pleaded that the initial contract was bogus and a sham and they​ ​were the permanent employees from the very beginning.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether a party in an adjudication can take an initial, definite stand in its pleadings and​ W ​subsequently raise a contradictory, mutually destructive plea?​ ​rule​ ​ arties cannot resile from judicial admissions in pleadings or raise mutually destructive​ P ​pleas.​ ​Analysis​ ​ ontract workmen who have admitted in their initial pleadings that they are employed by​ C ​independent contractors are bound by that judicial admission under common law principles​ ​of estoppel, and cannot subsequently raise a contradictory, mutually destructive plea that​ ​they are direct employees on the ground of a sham contract.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Appeal allowed.​ ​AMENDMENT TO THE PLEADING​ ​-​ ​All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions​ ​-​ ​(a) of not working injustice to another side​ ​-​ ​-​ (​ b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy​ ​between the parties.​ ​Amendemnts not allowed when it goes beyond the admitted facts/ claims by way of pleadings,​ ​meaning no contradictory amendments allowed which can change the formerly admitted claims in​ ​a plaint/WS.​ ​30. Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.​​(Order 6 Rule 17)​ ​Inconsistent pleadings in a different suit is not a bar.​ ​Facts​ ​ trade union initially filed a petition to abolish contract labour under the CLRA Act, which was​ A ​dismissed for non-prosecution. They later raised a new pleading under the Industrial Disputes Act,​ ​arguing the contract was a sham and that the workers were already direct employees of IOC. The​ ​management claimed this second suit was barred by res judicata and constructive estoppel due to the​ ​abandonment of the first case.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the abandonment or dismissal of a former suit without a decision on merits estops or bars a​ W ​litigant via​​res judicata​​from pursuing a distinct​​legal path or alternative relief grounded in the identical​ ​factual matrix?​ ​rule​ ​ lternative legal pleas and remedies are fully permissible, provided they originate from an identical​ A ​factual matrix.​ ​Analysis​ ​ he Supreme Court evaluated the dispute using the foundational principles of civil pleadings governed​ T ​by​​Order VI and Order VII of the CPC​​:​ ​●​ ​Order VI, Rule 2 & Order VII, Rule 7 (Permissible Alternative Remedies):​​The Court​ c​ larified that standard pleading allows a plaintiff to seek​​alternative reliefs based on the same​ ​factual grid​​. The union’s core factual statement never​​changed: they were contract laborers​ ​seeking direct, permanent employment. Shifting from a statutory route (abolition) to a judicial​ ​route (proving a "sham contract") is a valid alternative legal plea, not a prohibited change of​ ​facts.​ ​●​ ​Order VI, Rule 17 (The Limit of Pleadings and Amendments):​​The Court established that an​ ​amendment or subsequent pleading becomes impermissible only when it introduces an​ ​inconsistent factual plea​​that​​destroys an admission​​already granted to the opposing side.​ ​ ​ ​Distinction from Mutually Destructive Pleadings:​​The​​Court contrasted this with cases where​ ● ​workers committed a fatal pleading error by claiming they​​were contractor employees​​to demand​ ​absorption, while simultaneously claiming they​​were​​already direct employees​​. Because the​ ​union in​​Sarva Shramik Sangh​​maintained consistent​​facts and only shifted its legal remedies, its​ ​pleadings were harmonized rather than self-annihilating.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Appeal allowed.​ ​31. M/s Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. M/s Narayanaswamy & Sons​​(Order 6 Rule 17)​ ​The leading modern statement of the factors governing amendment​ ​Facts​ ​ he appellant (Revajeetu Builders) purchased land from the respondent (Narayanaswamy & Son) through​ T ​a sale deed that was later declared legally invalid and inoperative by the Supreme Court in a separate​ ​public interest litigation.Accepting this invalidity, the appellant initially filed a civil suit strictly for the​ ​recovery of money (approximately ₹52.97 Lakhs). However, four years into the litigation, the appellant​ ​filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17. They sought to dramatically amend the plaint to retract their​ ​admission regarding the deed's invalidity, completely change the cause of action, assert the sale deed was​ ​valid, and demand absolute possession of the land. The High Court rejected the amendment, and the​ ​matter escalated to the Supreme Court.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the amendment sought was imperative and bona fide, or mala fide, and what parameters govern​ W ​an application under Order 6 Rule 17.​ ​rule​ ​ he test for allowing amendments:​ T ​The central factors are:​ ​-​ ​whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;​ ​-​ ​whether the application is bona fide or mala fide;​ ​-​ ​whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side as cannot be compensated in​ ​terms of money;​ ​-​ ​whether it amounts to a complete change in the nature of the suit;​ ​-​ ​whether the application was filed at the trial stage or later, judged against the due diligence​ ​requirement.​ ​Analysis​ ​ decision under Order 6 Rule 17 is a serious judicial exercise and is never to be undertaken casually. The​ A ​Court noted that it is one of the most misused provisions of the Code for dragging proceedings out​ ​indefinitely. Where the amendment fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case, it must be​ ​refused. Substituting a money claim with a claim for possession of property was therefore disallowed.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Appeal dismissed​ ​ AIL - Inconsistent plea through amendment not allowed if it takes away the advantage accrued to the​ S ​defendant by the former judicial admission. There is no absolute bar on inconsistent pleadings as long as​ ​it stems from the factual matrix but claiming different legal route.​ ​REVAJEETU - 6 prong test for amendments​ ​ HARVA SHRAMIK - Alternative legal remedies or conclusions are fully permissible under the same​ S ​factual matrix. A party is not estopped or barred by res judicata from pursuing a distinct legal path or​ ​relief in a subsequent proceeding if the underlying facts remain consistent and the prior case was not​ ​decided on the merits.​ ​OUTLINE​ 1​ . STAGE ONE: Interpretation of​ ​Pleadings (Drafting & Objections)​ 2​ . STAGE TWO: Permissibility of​ ​Claims (The Multiple Claims​ ​Filter)​ ​Is there a technical error, omission of a legal word, or formatting defect?​ ​-​ ​YES → Apply Ram Sarup Gupta.​ ​-​ ​Ask: Does the overall substance give the adversary fair notice?​ ​-​ ​If YES → The court must interpret it liberally (Substance over Form).​ ​Pleadings survive; the court will not dismiss on a hyper-technicality if there​ ​is no unfair surprise.​ ​-​ ​If NO→ Defective pleading; proceed to Stage Three (Amendment).​ ​-​ ​NO → Pleading is formally sound. Proceed to Stage Two.​ ​-​ ​ oes the Plaint contain multiple or multi-layered claims/reliefs?​​(Order 6, Rule 2​ D ​& Order 7, Rule 7)​ ​-​ ​YES​​→ Analyze the relationship between the claims:​ ​-​ ​Same Facts + Different Legal Remedies?​​→ Apply​​Sarva​ ​Shramik Sangh​​.​ ​-​ ​Result: Permissible Alternative Plea​​.​​The factual​​matrix is​ ​consistent. Litigant is not barred by estoppel or​​res judicata​​.​ ​-​ ​Conflicting Legal Arguments as a Safety Net [ALTERNATIVE]?​ ​→ Apply​​Praful Manohar Rele​​.​ ​-​ ​Result: Permissible Backup Plan​​.​​Claims are allowed;​​if the​ ​primary legal claim is accepted, the alternative claim simply​ ​becomes​​legally redundant​​.​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ onflicting Facts where proving one proves the other is a lie?​​→​ C ​Apply​​SAIL (SAIL-II)​​.​ ​-​ ​Result:​​Impermissible Mutually Destructive Plea.​ ​Self-annihilating facts destroy trial integrity. The pleading or​ ​conflicting claim is struck down.​ ​ O →​​Stage three​ N 3​ . STAGE THREE: The​ ​Amendment​ ​-​ ​Is a party seeking to amend their Plaint or Written Statement?​ ​-​ ​YES →​ ​-​ ​Does the amendment retract a clear factual admission to take away​ ​the opponent’s vested advantage? Yes → amendment rejected​​SAIL​ ​II​ ​-​ ​NO →​ ​-​ ​Apply the​​Revajeetu​​6-Prong Test:​ ​-​ ​Necessity: Is it imperative to determine the real controversy?​ ​-​ ​Bona Fide: Is the application filed in good faith?​ ​-​ ​Prejudice: Can the damage to the other side be fixed with​ ​money/costs?​ ​-​ ​Injustice: Will saying 'no' cause a grave miscarriage of​ ​justice?​ ​-​ ​Character: Does it preserve the fundamental nature/identity​ ​of the suit?​ ​-​ ​Limitation: Is the new claim still within the legally​ ​prescribed time limit?​ ​-​ ​If ALL 6 YES → Amendment Allowed.​ ​-​ ​If ANY NO → Amendment rejected​ ​4. Fallback Decree​ ​-​ ​Has the Plaintiff failed to prove their primary case at trial?​ ​-​ ​YES → Look closely at the Defendant's Written Statement.​ ​-​ ​Did the Defendant explicitly admit a secondary liability or factual debt in​ ​their own pleadings?​ ​-​ ​YES → Apply Srinivas Ram Kumar. → The Court bypasses the​ ​failed primary claim and directly passes a decree based on the​ ​Defendant's admission to prevent a multiplicity of future litigations.​ ​-​ ​NO → Suit dismissed​ ​Session 19: Plaint​ ​Section 26 and Order 7 of CPC​ ​Meaning​ -​ ​ ​The Code does not define ‘plaint’. It is a​​statement of claim, a document by the presentation of​ ​which the suit is instituted.​ -​ ​ ​Its object is to state the grounds on which​​the plaintiff seeks the assistance of the court. It is a​ ​pleading of the plaintiff.​ ​Particulars of plaint – Rules 1 to 8​ ​-​ ​the name of the court in which the suit is​​brought;​ ​-​ ​the name, description and place of residence​​of the plaintiff;​ ​-​ ​the name, description and place of residence​​of the defendant;​ ​-​ ​where the plaintiff or defendant is a minor​​or of unsound mind, a statement to that effect;​ ​-​ ​the facts constituting the cause of action​​and when it arose;​ ​-​ ​the facts showing that the court has jurisdiction;​ ​-​ ​a statement of the value of the subject-matter​​for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees;​ ​-​ ​the reliefs claimed, simply or in the alternative;​ -​ ​ ​where a set-off has been allowed or part of​​the claim relinquished, the amount so allowed or​ ​relinquished;​ ​Documents to be produced with the plaint – Rules 14 to 17​ -​ ​ ​Documents on which the plaintiff sues, or relies,​​must be entered in a list and produced with the​ ​plaint.​ -​ ​ ​A document that ought to have been produced​​and was not, cannot be received in evidence at the​ ​hearing without leave of the court.​ ​Return of plaint – Rules 10, 10A, 10B​ -​ ​ ​Where the court finds it has no jurisdiction​​over the subject-matter, the plaint is returned for​ ​presentation to the proper court.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 10A allows the returning court, on the​​plaintiff’s application, to fix a date for appearance in​ ​the proper court, so that fresh summons need not be served.​ ​-​ ​An order returning the plaint is appealable​​under Order 43 Rule 1(a).​ ​Rejection of plaint – Rules 11 to 13​ ​-​ ​The plaint will be rejected where:​ ​-​ ​it does not disclose a cause of action;​ ​-​ ​the relief claimed is undervalued and the valuation​​is not corrected within the time fixed;​ -​ ​ ​the plaint is insufficiently stamped and the​​stamp paper is not supplied within the time​ ​fixed;​ ​-​ ​the suit appears from the statement in the​​plaint to be barred by any law;​ ​-​ ​the plaint is not filed in duplicate;​ ​-​ ​there is non-compliance with the statutory​​provisions of Rule 9.​ -​ ​ ​On the first ground the court must look at​​the plaint and at nothing else. The power is exercised​ ​only if, even taking every allegation in the plaint as proved, the plaintiff would be entitled to no​ ​relief. In that case the plaint is rejected without issuing summons.​ -​ ​ ​Rejection is a deemed decree under Section​​2(2) and is therefore appealable. Rule 13 preserves​ ​the plaintiff’s right to file a fresh plaint on the same cause of action.​ ​33. ONGC Ltd. v. Modern Construction & Co.​​(Order​​7 Rules 10 and 10A)​ ​Return of plaint – the suit starts de novo, it is not a continuation​ ​Facts​ ​ he plaint was returned for want of jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 10 and presented before the court​ T ​having competent jurisdiction.​ ​Issue​ ​ fter the return of a plaint, does the trial in the proper court begin afresh, or does it continue from the​ A ​stage at which the plaint was returned?​ ​Rule​ ​ n presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction the plaint is to be treated as a fresh plaint, and​ O ​the trial is to be conducted de novo even if it stood concluded before the court lacking competence.​ ​Analysis​ I​ f the court where the suit is instituted finds it has no jurisdiction, the plaint is returned under Order 7 Rule​ ​10 and the plaintiff may present it before the competent court. The plaintiff is entitled to exclude the​ ​period spent prosecuting the case before the court without jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Limitation​ ​Act, and may also seek adjustment of the court fee already paid.​ ​= held that a plaint returned under Order 7 Rules 10 and 10A is to be treated as a fresh filing.​ ​Conclusion​ ​De novo trial on return of plaint. Modern Construction is the position that now holds.​ ​Session 20: Summons​ ​Sections 27 to 29 and Order 5 of CPC​ ​Idea of summons​ -​ ​ ​A summons is the document by which the court​​calls upon the defendant to appear and answer​ ​the claim.​ -​ ​ ​Object: to give the defendant notice of the​​proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. It is an​ ​application of audi alteram partem.​ -​ ​ ​Section 27: where a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to​ ​appear and answer the claim, and it must be served in the manner prescribed on such day as may be​ ​specified.​ ​Technical requirements – Rules 1 to 8​ -​ ​ ​Every summons must be signed by the judge or​​an officer appointed by him and sealed with the​ ​seal of the court.​ ​-​ ​A copy of the plaint must accompany the summons.​ -​ ​ ​The summons must state whether the date fixed​​is for settlement of issues only, or for final​ ​disposal.​ -​ ​ ​It may order the defendant to produce documents​​in his possession or power on which he intends​ ​to rely.​ ​Obligation of the defendant after service​ -​ ​ ​The defendant must appear on the date fixed​​and file a written statement within thirty days from​ ​the date of service, extendable to ninety days for recorded reasons under the proviso to Order 8 Rule​ ​1.​ ​-​ ​Failure to appear attracts the consequences​​under Order 9.​ ​Different types of service under the Code​ -​ ​ ​Personal or direct service – Rules 10 to 16,​​18.​​Wherever practicable the summons must be​ ​served on the defendant in person or on his authorised agent. Where the defendant is absent from his​ ​residence with no likelihood of being found within a reasonable time and has no authorised agent,​ ​service may be made on any adult member of his family residing with him. A servant is not a family​ ​member for this purpose. In a suit relating to business against a person not residing within the​ ​court’s jurisdiction, service may be on the manager or agent carrying on that business.​ -​ ​ ​Service by the court – Rule 2.​​The ordinary​​route, through the court’s own process-serving​ ​agency.​ -​ ​ ​Service by the plaintiff – Rule 9A.​​The court​​may permit the plaintiff to effect service in​ ​addition to service by the court.​ -​ ​ ​Substituted service – Rules 17, 19, 20.​​Where​​the defendant or his agent cannot be found, or the​ ​defendant avoids service, the summons may be affixed on the outer door of the house, or served by​ ​publication in a daily newspaper circulating in the locality where the defendant last resided or​ ​carried on business. Substituted service is as effectual as personal service.​ ​-​ ​Service by post, courier, fax, email.​​Recognised​​modes under the amended Rule 9.​ -​ ​ ​Service in special cases – Rules 21 to 30.​​Defendant residing within the jurisdiction of another​ ​court, outside India, a public officer, a soldier, sailor or airman, or a prisoner.​ -​ ​ ​Refusal of summons: where the defendant refuses​​to accept service or sign the​ ​acknowledgement, the serving officer affixes a copy on the outer door and the court may declare​ ​service duly effected.​ ​ bjection to service must be raised at the earliest opportunity, otherwise it is deemed waived. An​ O ​irregularity in service does not by itself vitiate the proceeding unless prejudice is shown​ ​Session 21: Written statement​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ ritten statement not been defined in the code, → it sginifies a reply to the plaint filed by the​ W ​plaintiff. → wherein the defendant deals with every material fact alleged in the plaint and also​ ​states new facts in his favour or takes legal objections against the claims made in the plaint.​ ​Defendant can -​ ​-​ ​New facts - rule 2​ ​-​ ​Denial - rule 3​ ​-​ ​Set off/counterclaim - rule 6​ ​Filed by defendant. Or his agent. → written statement filed by one defendant does not bind all the​ ​defendants.​ ​Deadline - 30 mays​​and maybe extended to​​90 days.​​→ Order 8 rule 1​ ​Written statements → nature [constitutes], counterclaim, timeframe​ ​The WS has to complete in nature, be as comprehensive as possible;​ ​34. Kailash vs Nankhu​ ​Facts​ ​ ppellant was elected to the UP council and R1 challenged election by​ A ​filing an election petition.​ ​Timeline​ ​a)​ ​Summons were served on the appellant, requiring appearance on 6-4-2004 → On that date the​ ​appellant sought and obtained one month to file a written statement.​ ​b)​ ​Further time was requested on 13-5-2004 to obtain documents and matter was adjourned to​ ​3-7-2004.​ ​c)​ ​A written statement was prepared and the appellant’s affidavit sworn on 1-7-2004, it was filed​ ​only on 8-7-2004 because the advocate’s clerk misunderstood the filing procedure.​ ​The appellant applied for condonation of delay → HC refused to accept the written statement holding​ ​that O8R1 barred filing beyond 90 days from service of summons.​ ​Issue​ ​Whether the thirty days outer limit to file the written statement is mandatory or directory?​ ​Rule​ ​The thirty period is a permissive and directory provision, thus providing flexibility of the proceedings.​ ​Analysis​ ​ onsidering the provision of the Code as originally enacted, recommenations of the Law Commission,​ C ​anxiety of Parliament to ensure speedy disposal of cases but without sacrificing fairness of trial and​ ​principles natural justice inbuilt in all procedural laws, the court held the provision dlirectory and​ ​permissive and not mandatory and imperative.​ ​‘’​​The process of justice maybe speeded up and hurried​​but the fairness which is a basic elements of​ ​justice cannot be permitted to be buried.’’​ ​Conclusion​ ​ irectory. The court retains power to extend time beyond ninety days in exceptional cases, for reasons​ D ​recorded.​ ​35. Axis Bank Ltd. v. Mira Ghenani​ (​ Order 8 Rule 1 proviso; Commercial Courts Act, 2015)​ ​The time limit for the commercial courts/suits i.e. 120 is a​​fixed limitation/dealine​​and not merely​ ​procedural unlike the 90 days in normal civil suit.​ ​Facts​ ​ pinion dealing with the interpretation of amendments to O8R1​ O ​introduced by the Commercial Courts Act 2015.Several defendants in Commercial Suits failed to file​ ​their written statements within the stipulated 120-day period following service of​ ​summons.​ ​issue​ ​Whether delay past 120 days is condonable ?​ ​Rule​ ​ mendments introduced by the Commercial Courts Act to Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rules 1 and​ A ​10 are mandatory in nature.​ ​Analysis​ ​-​ ​Conclusion​ ​ he fact that the provision specifically makes a proviso for commercial suits, the time limit has​ T ​to be adhered to because it is a special legislation. Special legislation takes precedence over​ ​general legislation.​ ​No delay past 120 days in Commercial Suits.​ ​-​ t​he 120-day limit for filing a written statement in commercial suits is absolute, mandator,​ ​and cannot be extended under any circumstances​ ​Session 22: Written Statement (Contd.)​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ EEMED ADMISSION​ D ​JUDGEMENT AGAISNT DEFENDANT FOR WANT OF WS​ ​SET OFF​ ​36. Balraj Taneja -​ ​ rder 10, rule 5(2), Rule 10 → the court has the power to give judgment agains the D, if WS not​ o ​submitted under​ ​-​ ​5(2) → from the plaintiff’s facts [may also require the facts to be proven by P]​ ​-​ ​10 → WS not filed within time limit under R1 OR R9. → Judgment against the D, or any other​ ​order → highly discretionary.​ ​Facts​ ​ he respondent, Sunil Madan, filed a civil suit against the appellants (Balraj Taneja & Anr.) in the Delhi​ T ​High Court. He sought​​specific performance of an agreement​​for the sale​​of a residential​ ​property located in Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi Despite receiving summons and being granted​ ​multiple opportunities and extensions by the court, the defendants failed to file their Written Statement.​ ​Irritated by the delay, the High Court invoked Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and immediately decreed the suit in​ ​favor of the plaintiff without conducting a trial or writing a reasoned judgment. The defendants appealed​ ​this decision to the Supreme Court.​ ​issue​ I​ s it mandatory to decree a suit under Order 8 Rule 10 if no Written Statement is filed?​ ​Can a plaintiff be absolved from proving their case?​ ​Rule​ ​1.​ N ​ o. The Supreme Court clarified that Order 8 Rule 10 gives the court discretionary power, not a​ ​mandatory directive.​ ​2.​ ​No. A failure to file a WS does not mean the plaintiff's claims are automatically verified, the​ ​court may require the P to prove the facts, is disputed questions of fact arise.​ ​3.​ ​Judgment under 08,R10, has to be a complete document within itself,must contain a statement of​ ​the case, the points for determination, the decision and the reasons for the decision, as required​ ​by Order 20 Rule 4.​ ​Analysis​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​Conclusion​ ​ he rule states that the court shall "pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in​ T ​relation to the suit as it thinks fit". The court can choose alternative routes, such as requiring the​ ​plaintiff to prove their facts using independent evidence. Justice must not be sacrificed merely to​ ​punish a procedural default.​ ​In specific performance suits, the plaintiff must still prove essential statutory requirements, such​ ​as their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract (under Section​ ​16 of the Specific Relief Act). If the plaint itself reveals conflicting or disputed facts, the court​ ​must keep the controversy alive and demand proof.​ ​For a court to pass a judgment based on a defendant's admission (implied by their silence), the​ ​facts in the plaint must be completely clear, unambiguous, and positive. If the facts are evasive​ ​or conditional, the plaintiff must step into the witness box and prove their case.​ ​Appeal allowed.​ ​SET OFF - ORDER 8, RULE 6​ ​-​ ​A plea in defence taken by the defendant wherein the defendant is a creditor as well as a debtor to​ ​the plaintiff.​ ​-​ ​The doctrine of set-off may be defined as "the extinction of debts of which two persons are​ ​reciprocally debtors to one another by the credits of which they are reciprocally creditors to one​ ​another.​ ​-​ ​ESSENTIALS​ ​-​ ​Within the pecuniary limit of the court​ ​-​ ​Same character of the parties/ relationship​ ​-​ ​The set off should arise from the same transaction or should be connected by nature.​ ​-​ ​In the first hearing and subsequently only allowed through a court’s permission.​ ​-​ ​When can set off be claimed ?​ ​-​ ​-​ ​Types of set off -​ ​-​ ​Legal set off [​​ORDER 8, RULE 6​​]​ ​-​ ​Equitable set off [​​ORDER 20, RULE 19​​]​ ​The effect of the set off is such that it will result into plaintiff and defendant exhacnging places​ ​with regards to their respective claims. A separate suit is not started merely because of the set off,​ ​if the plaintiff withdraws theirs suit it does not affect the claim of the set off by the defendant.​ ​37. Jitendra Kumar Khan vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited​ ​EQUITABLE SET OFF​ ​Facts​ ​ he original suit was instituted in 1993 by three plaintiffs, agents of a company, seeking recovery of​ T ​commissions and incentives allegedly payable to them by the defendants. The plaintiffs prayed for​ ​various reliefs including declarations of entitlement to commissions, recovery of Rs. 25,00,000, enquiry​ ​into damages, accounts, receiver appointment, injunc-tion, costs, and other reliefs. The defendant no. 1​ s​ ubsequently filed an application seeking leave to amend their written statement by incorporating claims​ ​of set off and/or counter claim for recovery of a loan allegedly given to plaintiff . The defendant sought​ ​to add claims including a decree for Rs. 4,19,509.43 in their favor, interest, enquiry and decree of sums​ ​due, receiver, injunction, attachment, costs, and other reliefs. The application to amend was made​ ​several years after the original written statement was filed in 1994, raising issues of delay and limitation.​ ​ istrict court - allows amendment, although set off has to be subjected to the principles of law of​ D ​limitation​ ​HC - Dismissed amendment application to include set off citing limitation rules.​ ​SC - Plea Filed → later on allowed amendment based on ‘equity’.​ ​issue​ ​Rule​ ​Whether a set off claim be pleaded in a later stages of a suit ?​ -​ ​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ ithin the pecuniary limit of the court​ W ​Same character of the parties/ relationship​ ​The set off should arise from the same transaction or should be connected by nature.​ ​In the first hearing and subsequently only allowed through a court’s permission.​ ​Equitable set off independent of the provision of CPC, and based on the principles of​ ​equity.​ ​Analysis​ I​ n the case of set off being barred by limitation it can still be allowed on the principles of equity BUT it​ ​can only be used defensively i.e wiping out the plaintiff’s claim pro tanto. → wipe ut the plaintiff;s​ ​recovery amount​​up to the value​​of the cross claim.​ ​Conclusion​ ​COUNTER CLAIM - ORDER 8 RULE 6A​ ​-​ ​Used as a weapon rathern than a shield, where any claim can be introduced in against the plaintiff​ ​in the same suit , acting as a cross suit.​ ​-​ ​It is a claim which is independent in nature or can be separated from the claim of the plaintiff.​ ​-​ ​When the cause of action arises against the plaintiff the defendant gets the right to submit that​ ​claim along with the written statement.​ ​-​ ​It is considered as a plaint by the defendant against the claim of the plaintiff and is dealt with in​ ​the same manner as a plaint.​ ​-​ ​Furthermore, the plaintiff has an opportunity to file a written statement against the plaint​ ​consisting of the counterclaim.​ ​Module 8: Appearance and Non-Appearance of parties​ ​Session 23: Appearance and Non-appearance of parties​ ​Key Concepts to be discussed​ ​​ ● ​●​ ​●​ ​●​ ​ onsequence of default of plaintiff​ C ​Consequence of default of defendant​ ​Order to proceed ex parte and ex parte decree​ ​Consequences of not appearing in person when required by the court to do so.​ ​Order 9 of CPC​ ​Appearance – Rules 1 and 12​ -​ ​ ​On the day fixed in the summons the parties​​must attend, in person or by pleader, and the suit is​ ​heard unless adjourned.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 12: where a party is required to appear​​in person and fails to do so without lawful excuse,​ ​he is subject to the consequences in Rules 2 to 11.​ ​Consequence of default of plaintiff​ -​ ​ ​Where neither party appears – Rule 3.​​The suit​​is dismissed. Rule 4 allows the plaintiff to​ ​bring a fresh suit subject to limitation, or to apply for restoration on showing sufficient cause.​ -​ ​ ​Where only the defendant appears – Rules 8​​and 9.​​If the defendant does not admit the claim​ ​the suit is dismissed. If he admits it in whole or part, a decree is passed on the admission. Under​ ​Rule 9 the dismissal bars a fresh suit on the same cause of action, but the plaintiff may apply to set​ ​aside the dismissal on showing sufficient cause for non-appearance.​ -​ ​ ​Where summons was not served due to the plaintiff’s​​failure – Rules 2 and 5.​​The suit may​ ​be dismissed where the plaintiff fails to pay costs or to apply for fresh summons within the​ ​prescribed period.​ ​Consequence of default of defendant​ -​ ​ ​Where only the plaintiff appears and summons​​was duly served – Rule 6(1)(a).​​The court​ ​may proceed ex parte and pass an ex parte decree.​ ​-​ ​Where summons was not duly served – Rule 6(1)(b).​​A second summons is issued.​ -​ ​ ​Where summons was served but not in sufficient​​time – Rule 6(1)(c).​​The hearing is​ ​postponed.​ -​ ​ ​An ex parte decree is a decree passed in the​​absence of the defendant. It is a valid and​ ​enforceable decree, not a nullity, until set aside.​ ​Remedies against an ex parte decree​ ​-​ ​apply to set it aside under Order 9 Rule 13;​ ​-​ ​prefer an appeal under Section 96(2);​ ​-​ ​apply for review under Order 47 Rule 1;​ ​-​ ​file a suit on the ground of fraud.​ -​ ​ ​Grounds under Rule 13 –​​that the summons was​​not duly served, or that the defendant was​ ​prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.​ ​.​ ​38. Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, 2005​ ​Facts​ ​ he case originated from a partition suit filed in 1976 by the son of late Shri N.N. Mukherjee against​ T ​his mother and sister (Smt. Archana Kumar). During the trial, the defendants failed to appear on a​ ​specific date, prompting the trial court to pass an order to hear the suit ex parte.Subsequently, the​ ​defendants filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 to set aside the ex-parte hearing order, which​ ​was dismissed. The court then passed an ex parte preliminary decree for partition.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether a defendant whose application under Order 9 Rule 13 has been dismissed can still file a first​ W ​appeal under Section 96(2), and what he may argue in it.​ ​Rule​ ​ right to question the correctness of the decree in a first appeal is a statutory right. Such a right shall​ A ​not be curtailed nor shall any embargo be fixed thereupon unless the statute expressly or by necessary​ ​implication says so​ ​Analysis​ ​ he Court held that a defendant against an ex parte decree has​​two independent statutory remedies​ T ​under the CPC:​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ rder IX Rule 13 Application:​​To challenge​​procedural​​grounds​​(e.g., improper service or​ O ​sufficient cause for non-appearance).​ ​Section 96(2) First Appeal:​​To challenge the​​substantive​​merits​​of the case.​ ​-​ ​Concurrent Remedies: Both options can be pursued​​simultaneously.​ ​Res Judicata & Issue Estoppel Restrictions​ ​A defendant cannot re-litigate the same issues across both forums:​ ​●​ ​Issue Estoppel:​​If the Order IX Rule 13 application​​is dismissed, the defendant​​cannot​ r​ e-agitate procedural failure or "sufficient cause​​"​​in the Section 96(2) appeal.​ ​ ​ ​Substantive Merits:​​Dismissal of the Rule 13 application​​does not bar the first appeal from​ ● ​proceeding on the​​substantive merits​​of the record.​ ​Conclusion​ ​TWO REMEDIES RUNS SIMULATNEOUSLY FOR EX PARTE​​DECREE​ ​Statutory remedy under O9,R13​ ​Appeal route under S.96 (2)​ ​Two grounds​ ​-​ ​Summons not duly served​ ​-​ ​Prevented by any sufficient cause from​ ​appearing. (like sudden illness or an​ ​emergency) that stopped them from​ ​attending court on the hearing day.​ ​Substative grounds [merits of the case]​ ​-​ ​Failure to Establish a Prima Facie Case​ ​-​ ​Misappreciation of Evidence​ ​-​ ​Error of Law​ ​-​ ​Barred by Limitation​ ​-​ ​Lack of Jurisdiction​ ​39.Sangram Singh vs Election Tribunal Kotah​ ​O9,R7 - Ex parte ORDER​ ​Facts​ ​.- defendant has appeared, filed statement​ ​-​ ​Issues have been filed​ ​-matter listed for evidence and losted for later dates​ ​- Defendant later on appears and postulates the reason why he could not appear under rule 7 order 9​ ​Election tribunal dismissed this application​ ​issue​ ​ hat is the true meaning and consequence of a court deciding to "proceed ex parte" under the Code of​ W ​Civil Procedure?​ ​Can a party who fails to appear at an adjourned hearing be permanently barred from participating in all​ ​future stages of the trial?​ ​Rule​ ​ he non apperance of the party in an earlier stage does not permanently bar them from appearing in​ T ​susbeqeunt suit provided they furnish a good reason for the non appearance BUT cannot be relegated to​ ​the position of the fresh start of the suit under R7, O9.​ ​Analysis​ ​-​ ​Deconstructing the "Ex Parte"​ ​-​ ​The Supreme Court clarified that an order to "proceed ex parte" is not a formal, punitive​ ​order that permanently disqualifies a party. It is merely a record of the fact that the court​ ​is proceeding in the absence of one party. It removes the procedural bar on the court​ ​from continuing with the case, but it does not create a permanent bar against the absent​ ​party's future participation.​ ​-​ ​The Right to Re-join Proceedings​ ​-​ ​The core of the analysis rested on the party's right to participate at an adjourned hearing.​ ​The Court held that if a party, who was previously absent, appears at a subsequent​ ​hearing, they cannot be prevented from taking part in the proceedings from that point​ ​onwards. The trial does not become a one-sided affair for all time to come.​ ​-​ ​ owever, this right is not absolute. Unless they show "good cause" for their prior absence, as​ H ​required by Order IX, Rule 7, they must accept what has already transpired in their absence.The​ ​defendant cannot be relegated back to the position of a fresh suit, They cannot demand to​ ​cross-examine witnesses who have already been examined and discharged. They join the​ ​proceedings at the stage where they are.​ ​ he mere non appearance at one stage does not bar the party from apppearing in the subsequent stages​ T ​→ QUALIFIER → The defendant has to take the case as it is and cannot ask the trial to be started from​ ​the beginning.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Module 9: First hearing of Suit​ ​Session 24: Admissions and Framing of Issues​ ​WHAT HAPPENS AT FIRST HEARING ? -​​INTERLOCUTORY STAGE​ ​ his is a pre trial stage, where the court is trying to understand the pleadings of each party and before​ T ​framing of the issue or to use the statements to frame issues.​ ​Before framing of the issues​ ​-​ ​Examination of parties → elucidate their claim or settlement through ADR - ORDER 10​ ​-​ ​It is to be noted that Orders 11, 12, and 13 take place within the examination procedure​ ​laid down under this Order.​ ​-​ ​Discovery → Interrogatories filed , Opponent reveals documents - ORDER 11​ ​-​ ​Admissions → Parties accept facts/docs, Rule 6: Immediate judgment passed if liability admitted​ ​- ORDER 12​ ​-​ ​Documents → Original evidence produced irrelevant papers rejected - ORDER 13​ ​-​ ​Issues framing → Judge frames the exact legal/factual disputes - ORDER 14​ ​-​ ​Disposal at first hearing → Court checks if a full trial is genuinely needed → Are the parties at​ ​conflict on any point of law/fact? - ORDER 15​ ​-​ ​Yes - trial​ ​-​ ​No - disposal​ ​Orders 10, 12, 14, 15 and 15-A of CPC; Section 2(f) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023​ ​First hearing – meaning​ -​ ​ ​The first hearing is the date on which the​​court goes into the pleadings to understand the parties’​ ​contentions, not the date fixed for the return of summons.​ -​ ​ ​It is the date on which issues are framed,​​or on which the court applies its mind to the case for​ ​the first time.​ ​Examination of parties at first hearing – Order 10​ -​ ​ ​Rule 1: the court ascertains from each party​​whether he admits or denies the allegations of fact​ ​made in the plaint or written statement and not expressly or impliedly admitted or denied by the​ ​other.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 1A to 1C: the court directs the parties​​to opt for one of the modes of alternative dispute​ ​resolution under Section 89.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 2: oral examination of a party or of any​​person accompanying him, to elucidate matters in​ ​controversy.​ ​-​ ​Rule 4: consequence of a party’s refusal or​​inability to answer material questions.​ ​Admissions – Order 12​ -​ ​ ​An admission is a statement, oral, documentary​​or electronic, suggesting an inference as to a fact​ ​in issue or a relevant fact.​​See Section 2(f) of the​​Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.​ ​-​ ​Rule 1: notice of admission of case.​ ​- Rule 2: notice to admit documents.​ ​- Rule 4: notice to admit facts.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 6 – judgment on admissions.​​Where admissions​​of fact have been made, either in the​ ​pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the court may at any stage pass such judgment​ ​as it thinks fit, without waiting for the determination of any other question.​ -​ ​ ​The power under Rule 6 is enabling and discretionary,​​not mandatory. The admission must be​ ​clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. Where triable issues remain, judgment on​ ​admissions is not to be passed.​ -​ ​ ​Admissions must be taken as a whole. A qualified​​or partial statement is not an admission for​ ​this purpose.​ ​Settlement of issues – Order 14​ -​ ​ ​Issues arise when a material proposition of​​fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the​ ​other.​ ​-​ ​Kinds –​​issues of fact, issues of law, and​​mixed issues of fact and law.​ -​ ​ ​Materials for framing issues – Rule 3.​​allegations​​made on oath by the parties or by persons​ ​present on their behalf; allegations in the pleadings or in interrogatories delivered and answers; and​ ​the contents of documents produced by either party.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 2: where issues of both law and fact arise​​in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that​ ​the case may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if it relates to the​ ​jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by any law.​ ​-​ ​Rule 5: the court may amend or frame additional​​issues at any time before passing a decree.​ -​ ​ ​Omission to frame an issue is not by itself​​fatal, unless it has prejudiced a party or resulted in a​ ​failure of justice.​ ​Disposal of suit at first hearing – Order 15​ -​ ​ ​Rule 1: where at the first hearing the parties​​are not at issue on any question of law or fact, the​ ​court may pronounce judgment at once.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 3: where the parties are at issue and​​the summons was for final disposal, the court may​ ​proceed to final disposal if the witnesses are present.​ -​ ​ ​Order 15-A – case management hearing.​​Introduced​​for commercial suits. The court fixes a​ ​schedule for filing affidavits of evidence, recording of oral evidence, cross-examination, written​ ​arguments and oral arguments, and fixes the date by which judgment is to be pronounced.​ ​40. T. Aravindanam vs. T.V. Satyapal​ ​Facts​ ​ eititoner-son of R2 had repeatedly attempted to avoid eviction from a​ P ​shop premises.​ ​+ After losing an eviction action against the Rent Controller and a revision​ ​petition before the HC, the tenant received generous extension of time to​ ​vacate.​ ​+ Instead of vacating → petitioner and his father initiated successive suits in​ ​different Munsif Courts alleging that the eviction decree had been​ ​obtained by fraud and sought injunction.​ ​+ Injunctions kept getting vacated and they kept filing fresh proceedings →​ ​Present matter is the petitioner’s audacious application for special leave to​ ​appeal to the SC against the HC’s interlocutory order refusing an​ ​injunction.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the pending suit constitutes a flagarant abuse of process​ W ​warranting rejection of th eplaint under O7R11 of CPC ?​ ​rule /ratio​ ​ rivoluous suits should be nipped in the bud on the first hearing by examining the parties​ F ​under order 10.​ ​Analysis​ ​ he learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful -- not formal​ T ​-- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the​ ​sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power​ ​under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground​ ​mentioned therein is fulfilled.​ ​+ And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip​ ​it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly​ ​under Order X, C.P.C​ -​ Application​ ​+ In any view, that suit has no survival value and should be disposed of​ ​forthwith after giving an immediate hearing to the parties concerned.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Petition dismissed​ ​41. Kapil Core Packs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Harbanslal​ ​ urpose of the provisions under order 10, not at trial stage, but at a pre trial stage to frame an issue by​ P ​understanding the pleadings of the parties to see whether any actual despite of fact or law exists or not.​ ​Facts​ ​ he Dispute:​​Harbans Lal filed a civil suit against​​Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd.,​ T ​claiming a refund on a land sale agreement. [​​1​]​ ​ he Defense:​​The company denied executing the agreement,​​asserting that their​ T ​signatures and company stamps were forged. They even filed a separate criminal​ ​complaint regarding the forgery. [​​1​,​​2​,​​3​]​ ​ he Incident:​​During a pre-trial hearing, a Single​​Judge of the High Court examined​ T ​the company's Managing Director under Order 10, Rule 2 of the CPC. The Judge​ ​covered up the body of the disputed document and showed the MD​​only​​the signature​ ​and seal. Caught off-guard, the MD stated that the signature "appeared" to be his. [​​1​]​ ​ he High Court's Action:​​Treating this as an admission​​of guilt, the High Court​ T ​claimed the "truth had emerged". The judge threatened to initiate criminal​ ​proceedings against the company under​​Section 340​​of the CrPC​​read with​​Section​ ​195 of the IPC​​for lying in their initial written​​statements. The company appealed to​ ​the Supreme Court. [​​1​,​​2​]​ ​Issue​ ​rule /ratio​ ​Analysis​ ​ he power under order 10 is only for the purpose of clarifying the stand of the parties in​ T ​regard to the allegations made, it cannot be converted to a process of cross examination by​ ​the court.​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​The primary purpose of an Order 10, Rule 2 examination is to​​identify the real​ ​matters in controversy​​and clarify pleadings at the​​pre-trial stage. It is​​not​​a tool​ ​for the court to conduct an informal trial, cross-examine parties, or trap them into​ ​admissions before the actual evidence-led trial stage begins​ ​Statements under order 10 rule 2 are not given on oath..The party is being examined​ ​by the court to clarify pleadings, not as a witness.Because these statements are not​ ​recorded under oath, they cannot be used to initiate criminal proceedings for perjury​ ​(under Section 340 of the CrPC) if they contradict the party's written pleadings.​ ​The Court emphasized that Order 10, Rule 2 is a pre-trial stage procedure. A court​ ​cannot bypass the entire framework of a civil trial—such as the formal​ a​ dmission/denial of documents, framing of issues, and the recording of evidence​ ​under oath—by using a summary oral examination to fast-track a final judgment.​ ​Conclusion​ ​ ession 25: Discovery and Inspection, Production, Impounding and Return of​ S ​documents​ ​ ase management hearing will not be done - case management​ C ​Sections 30 to 32, Orders 11 and 13 of CPC; Order 11 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015​ ​General​ -​ ​ ​Section 30 empowers the court, at any time​​either of its own motion or on application, to make​ ​orders relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and​ ​facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents.​ -​ ​ ​Object: to enable a party to know the case​​he has to meet before trial, to narrow the dispute, to​ ​save expense, and to obtain admissions.​ ​Discovery of facts – interrogatories, Rules 1 to 11​ -​ ​ ​Interrogatories are written questions delivered​​by one party to the other, with leave of the court,​ ​to be answered on affidavit.​ ​-​ ​Who may seek –​​any party to the suit, against​​any other party.​ -​ ​ ​Conditions –​​they must relate to matters in​​question in the suit, and must be necessary either to​ ​dispose of the suit fairly or to save costs.​ -​ ​ ​Not allowed –​​interrogatories that are scandalous​​or irrelevant, not exhibited bona fide for the​ ​purpose of the suit, or that fish for the opponent’s evidence rather than his case. [​​javed akhtar case​​]​ -​ ​ ​A party is not bound to answer interrogatories​​that relate to privileged matter, to matters of​ ​evidence rather than fact, or to confidential communication with a legal adviser.​ ​Discovery of documents – Rules 12 to 14​ -​ ​ ​A party may apply for an order directing the​​other to make discovery on oath of the documents​ ​which are or have been in his possession or power relating to any matter in question in the suit.​ -​ ​ ​The court may refuse or adjourn the application​​if discovery is not necessary at that stage, or not​ ​necessary for disposing of the suit fairly or for saving costs.​ ​-​ ​Premature discovery under Rule 20 is to be​​avoided.​ ​Inspection – Rules 15 to 19​ -​ ​ ​A party may give notice to produce for inspection​​documents referred to in the pleadings or​ ​affidavits of the other party.​ -​ ​ ​Failure to comply means the document cannot afterwards be put in evidence on that party’s​ ​behalf, unless the court is satisfied there was sufficient cause.​ ​Non-compliance – Rule 21​ -​ ​ ​Where a party fails to comply with an order​​for discovery or inspection,​​the plaintiff’s suit​​may​ ​be dismissed for want of prosecution, or the defendant’s defence struck out and he placed in the​ ​same position as if he had not defended.​ ​-​ ​The penalty is a serious one and is used only​​where the default is wilful.​ ​Order 11 under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015​ -​ ​ ​Mandatory disclosure on affidavit of all documents​​in the party’s power, possession, control or​ ​custody, filed along with the plaint or written statement.​ ​-​ ​Duty to disclose extends to documents adverse​​to the disclosing party’s own case.​ -​ ​ ​Documents not disclosed cannot be relied on​​at trial without leave, which is given only on​ ​establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure.​ ​-​ ​Mandatory pre-trial inspection and admission​​or denial of documents.​ ​Production, impounding and return of documents – Order 13​ -​ ​ ​Rule 1.​​Documentary evidence in the possession​​or power of a party must be produced at or​ ​before the settlement of issues.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 3.​​The court may at any stage reject any​​document it considers irrelevant or otherwise​ ​inadmissible, recording the ground of rejection.​ -​ ​ ​Rules 4 to 6.​​Every document admitted in evidence​​is endorsed with the number and title of the​ ​suit, the name of the party producing it, the date, and a statement of its having been so admitted, and​ ​the endorsement is signed by the judge. The document then forms part of the record.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 7 – return.​​Documents not admitted in​​evidence are returned to the person producing them.​ ​An admitted document may also be returned during the pendency of the suit on an undertaking to​ ​produce the original if required, and on a certified copy being substituted.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 8 – impounding.​​The court may for sufficient​​cause direct any document, book or exhibit​ ​produced before it to be impounded and kept in the custody of an officer of the court for such period​ ​and on such conditions as it thinks fit. Rule 7 deals with documents not admitted; Rule 8 with those​ ​admitted. The power is used in cases of forgery, or apprehension that the document may be​ ​destroyed or altered.​ ​42. Nishi Prem vs Javed Akhtar​ ​Facts​ ​ resent appeal comes from an order passed, directing D3 to disclose on​ P ​affidavit the names of people referenced in an article written by D3.​ ​ Article was deemed to be defamatory and false → Plaintiff wanted the​ + ​identities of individuals disclosed to enable him to sue or add such persons​ a​ s defendants.​ ​+ D3 opposed the summons on grounds of confidentialit.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether D3 can be compelled to disclose the names under O11R1 at the​ W ​interlocutory stage ?​ ​rule /ratio​ ​ his rule is enacted to enable the parties to know the nature of the opponent's case, but the​ T ​rule does not entitle the party to ascertain the facts which constitute exclusively the evidence​ ​of the other side, the reason being that it would enable unscrupulous parties to tamper with​ ​the witnesses of the other side and to manufacture evidence in contradiction and so shape his​ ​case as to defeat justice.​ ​ ote O11R6 allows objections to interrogatories on the ground that​ N ​it is (i) scandalous or (ii) irrelevant or (iii) not exhibited bona fide​ ​for suit purpososes or (iv) not sufficiently material​ ​Analysis​ ​Scope of O11R1​ ​-​ ​a) This rule is enacted to enable the parties to know the nature of the opponent's​ ​case, but the rule does not entitle the party to ascertain the facts which constitute​ ​exclusively the evidence of the other side, the reason being that it would enable​ ​unscrupulous parties to tamper with the witnesses of the other side and to​ ​manufacture evidence in contradiction and so shape his case as to defeat justice.​ ​-​ ​-​ ​b) Note O11R6 allows objections to interrogatories on the ground that it is​ ​-​ ​(i) scandalous or​ ​-​ ​(ii) irrelevant or​ ​-​ ​(iii) not exhibited bona fide for suit purpososes or​ ​-​ ​(iv) not sufficiently material​ ​-​ ​Conclusion​ ​+ Reason why it can’t be granted at interim stage​ ​-​ ​a) We have no hesitation in holding that the newspaper rule which is​ ​followed in England for over a century should be applied and newspaper​ ​should not be compelled to disclose the source of information at an interim​ ​stage in answer to the interrogatories​ ​-​ ​b) O11R6 → The interrogatories were misdirected, irrelevant and for an​ ​object which was entirely outside the ambit of the suit​ ​Case decided in favor of the defendants​ ​43.​​Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia vs Subodh Mody​ ​Facts​ ​ rit petitions dealing with admissibility of documents and evidence in​ W ​civil suits.​ ​+ In WP 1 → The defendants objected to the TC’s order marking 126​ ​documents as exhibits subject to prooft, contending that the voluminous​ ​nature of the documents make it difficult to determine which require cross​ ​examination.​ ​+ In WP 2 → The defendant challenged the TC’s ruling that objections to​ ​the admissibility and relevance of evidence in affidavits under O28R4​ ​should be decided only at the final stage, after cross-examination.​ ​+ Conflicting precedents means we go to SC.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the admissibility of documents should be determined at the time they are presented​ w ​or reserved until the final judgment.​ ​rule /ratio​ ​ bjections to documentary evidence must generally be addressed promptly upon their​ o ​presentation, ensuring fairness and preventing undue prejudice.​ ​Analysis​ ​Ordinarily, objections to the admissibility or mode of proof of a document must be decided​ ​then and there before the document is marked as an exhibit​​. The court classified​ ​documentary admissibility into three distinct categories​​.​ ​1.​ ​Stamp Duty Deficiency:​​Must be judicially determined​​immediately​​when the​ ​ ocument is tendered and before it is marked as an exhibit​​[13]​​,​[​14]​​,​[​15]​​.​ d ​ .​ ​Irregular or Insufficient Mode of Proof:​​Must be raised​​when the evidence is​ 2 ​tendered and decided​​then and there​​[15]​​,​[​16]​​. Failure​​to raise a timely objection​ c​ onstitutes a​​waiver of formal proof​​[17]​​,​​[18]​​.​ ​ .​ ​Ab Initio Inadmissible Documents:​​Can be tentatively​​exhibited, and the decision​ 3 ​on admissibility can be​​deferred until final judgment​​(or raised at any stage,​ ​including appeal)​ ​ rial courts in civil suits must ordinarily decide objections regarding stamp duty deficiency​ T ​and mode of proof of documents​​immediately when raised​​before marking them as​ ​exhibits​​, whereas decisions on​​ab initio inadmissible​​documents​​and​​oral statements in​ ​examination-in-chief affidavits​​under Order XVIII,​​Rule 4 CPC may be deferred to final​ ​judgment​ ​Conclusion​ ​Module 10: Trial and Affidavits​ ​Session 26: Summoning and Attendance of Witnesses​ ​Section 30 and Orders 16 and 16-A of CPC​ ​General​ -​ ​ ​Once the plaint and written statement are on​​record and the issues have been framed, the parties​ ​know what facts and documents they must prove. At that point a party may apply for summons to​ ​the persons he proposes to call.​ -​ ​ ​Sections 30 to 32 and Orders 16 to 18 govern​​summoning, attendance and examination of​ ​witnesses. Order 16 deals with summoning and attendance, Order 16-A with witnesses in prison,​ ​Order 17 with adjournments and Order 18 with the hearing of the suit.​ ​List of witnesses and summons – Rule 1​ -​ ​ ​Parties must file in court a list of witnesses​​whom they propose to call to give evidence or to​ ​produce documents, and obtain summonses for their attendance.​ -​ ​ ​The list must be filed on or before the date​​the court appoints, and not later than fifteen days after​ ​the issues are framed.​ -​ ​ ​Object –​​to give notice to a party of the witnesses​​his adversary will examine, so that he knows​ ​the nature of the evidence he has to meet.​ -​ ​ ​An application must indicate the purpose of​​summoning a particular witness. If this is not​ ​insisted upon, unscrupulous litigants may prolong a trial for years. An application by A to examine​ ​the advocate appearing for B was held liable to be rejected.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 1(3): the court may permit a party to​​call a witness not named in the list, if sufficient cause​ ​is shown for the omission.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 1-A.​​A party may bring any witness to​​give evidence or produce documents without​ ​applying for summons.​ -​ ​ ​Rules 1 and 1-A operate in two different areas.​​Where a party wants the court’s assistance to​ ​secure a witness’s presence, he must follow Rule 1. Where he wants to produce a witness without​ ​that assistance, he may do so under Rule 1-A and the court has no jurisdiction to decline to examine​ ​such a witness.​ -​ ​ ​The court may summon any person as a witness​​suo motu if the ends of justice so require. That​ ​power is discretionary and should not be exercised unless there are compelling reasons.​ -​ ​ ​Rules 2 to 4: travelling and other expenses​​and remuneration of witnesses. A witness cannot be​ ​ordered to attend in person unless he resides within the court’s territorial jurisdiction or within the​ ​prescribed limits.​ ​Consequences of non-compliance – Rules 10 to 13​ -​ ​ ​Where a person summoned fails to attend, the court may issue a proclamation, attach his​ ​property, impose a fine, or order his arrest.​ -​ ​ ​Where a party to the suit refuses to give evidence​​or produce a document when required, the​ ​court may pronounce judgment against him or make such order as it thinks fit.​ ​Witnesses in prison – Order 16-A​ -​ ​ ​Where evidence of a person confined in a prison​​is required, the court may make an order​ ​requiring the officer in charge to produce him, or may issue a commission for his examination in the​ ​prison.​ ​44. Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan​​(Order 16 Rules 1 and​​1-A)​ ​Rules 1 and 1-A operate in different fields​ ​Facts​ ​ he case centers around an election petition filed by the appellant, Shri Mange Ram, who​ T ​contested the Haryana Legislative Assembly elections from the Jind constituency but was​ ​defeated by Shri Brij Mohan, the first respondent. The petition alleged corrupt practices and​ ​irregularities in the conduct of the election.​ ​ he crux of the dispute revolved around the appellant's right to produce and examine witnesses​ T ​during the trial of the election petition. The High Court had refused the appellant's request to​ ​examine his 54 witnesses, leading to the appeal that eventually reached the Supreme Court.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether a party who has not filed a list of witnesses under Rule 1 is barred from producing a​ W ​witness under Rule 1-A.​ ​Rule​ ​ ule 1 applies where a party seeks the assistance of the court to secure a witness’s attendance.​ R ​Rule 1-A applies where the party brings the witness himself. The two cover different situations,​ ​and where the party proceeds under Rule 1-A the court has no jurisdiction to decline to examine​ ​the witness.​ ​Analysis​ ​ he requirement of filing a list within fifteen days of the framing of issues is directed at the​ T ​court’s own process of summoning. It does not take away the party’s liberty to produce his​ ​witness in court without a summons.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Non-filing of the list under Rule 1 does not shut out a witness produced under Rule 1-A.​ ​45. Lalitha J. Rai v. Aithappa Rai​​(Order 16 Rule​​1-A)​ ​Facts​ ​Plaintiff-Appellant filed suit seeking title and possession over the suit​ ​property.​ ​+ 1993 → Appellants filed an application, accompanied by a list of​ ​witnesses requesting the trial court to issue summonses so that the​ ​witnesses could testify → But it was late​ ​a) In an accompanying affidavit, the appellant’s husband - acting as​ ​her General Power of Attorney holder - explained that he had​ ​mistakenly believed the witness list had already been filed and​ ​discovered an omission → Which is why it was filed late.​ ​+ Trial court dismissed the application for for witness examination on the​ ​ground that no adequate explanation for the late filing had been offered.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the trial court erred in refusing to accept the belated list of witnesses and in declining​ W ​to summon those witnesses under O16R1&1-A ?​ ​Rule​ ​ ollows Mange Ram on the distinct operation of Order 16 Rules 1 and 1-A, on the procedure​ F ​for attendance of witnesses.​ ​Analysis​ I​ t is seen that in the application it was stated by the husband of the appellant that they were​ ​under the bonafide impression that they have already filed the list of the witnesses alongwith​ ​the documents and that the mistake of non-filing the list was discovered when they were getting​ ​ready for the trial. + It is not in dispute that the trial is yet to begin. In these circumstances, we​ ​think that the trial court committed illegality in refusing to receive the list for summoning the​ ​witnesses for adduction of evidence by the plaintiff.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Appeal allowed in plaintiff’s favor.​ ​Session 27: Hearing of the suit​ ​Order 18 of CPC; Sections 104 to 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023​ -​ ​ ​Once the cause of action and the relief is​​sought from the court, it has to be supported by​ ​evidence affidavit.​​UNDER ORDER 19.​ ​-​ ​Facts in personal knowledge​ ​-​ ​Info received/ believed It to be true​ ​-​ ​Source of the information to be revealed​ ​-​ ​Legal advice​ ​Trial in open court – Section 153-B​ -​ ​ ​As a general rule the evidence of witnesses​​is taken orally in open court in the presence of and​ ​under the personal direction and superintendence of the judge.​ -​ ​ ​Public trial in open court is essential to​​the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. A​ ​trial held under public scrutiny acts as a check against judicial caprice and creates public confidence​ ​in the fairness and impartiality of the process.​ -​ ​ ​Bentham: in the darkness of secrecy, sinister​​interest and evil in every shape have full swing.​ ​Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice.​ ​Trial in camera​ -​ ​ ​The rule of open trial is not inflexible. If​​the requirement of the administration of justice itself​ ​makes it necessary, the court may hold a trial in camera.​ -​ ​ ​The overriding consideration is the fair administration​​of justice. Where the claims of open trial​ ​and of the administration of justice conflict, public trial must yield.​ ​Right to begin and reply – Rules 1 to 3​ -​ ​ ​The right to begin follows the rules of evidence​​on burden of proof. Burden lies on the party who​ ​would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.​ -​ ​ ​As a general rule the plaintiff has to prove​​his claim and therefore has the right to begin, unless​ ​the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that on a point of law such as res​ ​judicata or limitation, or on additional facts alleged by him, the plaintiff is entitled to no relief. In​ ​that case the defendant begins.​ -​ ​ ​The party beginning states his case and produces​​evidence on the issues he is bound to prove.​ ​The other party then states his case, produces evidence and may address the court on the whole case.​ ​The party beginning may then reply generally on the whole case.​ -​ ​ ​Where there are several issues and the burden​​on some lies on the other party, the party​ ​beginning may either lead evidence generally on those issues or reserve it by way of answer.​ -​ ​ ​If the plaintiff’s counsel is absent or arrives​​late and the defendant’s counsel has begun his​ ​arguments, the plaintiff’s counsel has no right of interruption.​ -​ ​ ​A party who wishes to be examined as a witness​​should offer himself for examination before his​ ​other witnesses are examined.​ ​Recording of evidence – Rules 4 to 13​ -​ ​ ​The Amendment Act, 2002 made radical changes.​​Before it, evidence had to be recorded in open​ ​court under the personal direction and superintendence of the judge, which consumed a large part of​ ​the court’s time and was a main cause of delay.​ -​ ​ ​Under the present provision examination-in-chief​​is on affidavit, and oral evidence may be​ ​recorded by a Court Commissioner, who may also record remarks on the demeanour of witnesses.​ ​The Commissioner’s report is submitted to the court and forms part of the record of the suit.​ -​ ​ ​Appealable cases –​​the evidence of each witness​​is taken down in writing, in the language of the​ ​court, by or in the presence and under the personal direction of the judge, or from his dictation, and​ ​forms part of the record.​ -​ ​ ​Non-appealable cases –​​the judge need not take​​down the evidence in full but must make a​ ​memorandum of its substance, which he signs and which forms part of the record.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 15 – evidence recorded by another judge.​​Where a judge is prevented by death, transfer​ ​or other cause from concluding the trial, his successor may deal with the evidence already recorded​ ​as if he had recorded it himself.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 16 – examination de bene esse.​​Where a​​witness is about to leave the jurisdiction, or there​ ​is other sufficient cause why his evidence should be taken immediately, the court may take it at​ ​once, before the issues are settled if necessary.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 17 – recalling a witness.​​The court may​​at any stage recall any witness who has been​ ​examined and put such questions to him as it thinks fit.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 2(3-A to 3-D) – arguments.​​Oral arguments​​may be regulated and time-bound, and a party​ ​may also submit written arguments before the conclusion of oral arguments, copies being supplied​ ​to the other side.​ ​46. Manjit Singh Lassi v. Col. Gurcharan Singh​​(Order 18)​ ​The right to begin accrues on the person asserting new facts/claim.​ ​Facts​ ​ he plaintiff was Col. Gurcharan Singh, and the defendant/petitioner was Manjit Singh Lassi. They are​ T ​brothers and sons of the late Inderjit Singh Lassi.​ ​ ispute: The plaintiff filed a suit for possession through partition based on natural succession, as their​ D ​father was the absolute owner of the property. The defendant admitted the relationship and ownership,​ ​but set up a new plea claiming a Will.​ ​ rocedural History: The trial court framed the issues and directed the Defendant to lead his evidence​ P ​first in order to prove the authenticity of the Will. The Defendant challenged this procedural order by​ ​filing a revision petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, claiming the Plaintiff should begin​ ​instead. The court also highlighted that the Defendant had utilized multiple delay tactics, filing​ ​numerous separate applications over two years to stall proceedings.​ ​Issue​ ​ ho should lead evidence first when the defendant admits the core facts of ownership and relationship​ W ​but sets up a separate plea (the Will)?​ ​Rule​ ​ rder 18 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908: This rule governs the right to begin a​ O ​trial. While the plaintiff normally has the right to begin, the rule explicitly provides an exception: if the​ ​defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some​ ​additional facts alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he​ ​seeks, the defendant has the right to begin​ ​Analysis​ ​ valuating Admissions:​​The High Court observed that​​the Plaintiff’s suit relied strictly on natural​ E ​succession. Because the Defendant formally admitted the father's absolute ownership and the sibling​ ​relationship, the Plaintiff did not need to independently prove those points.​ ​ he Burden of the Will:​​The court deduced that the​​Plaintiff's claim would automatically succeed on​ T ​the basis of natural succession​​unless​​the Defendant​​could successfully prove the execution and validity​ ​of the 1974 Will.​ ​ hifting the Right to Begin:​​Since the entire fate​​of the suit hinged exclusively on the additional fact​ S ​introduced by the defense (the Will), the trial court correctly applied Order 18 Rule 1 of the CPC. The​ ​Defendant's reliance on precedents where the plaintiff was ordered to lead evidence first was rejected,​ ​as those cases lacked the definitive, complete admission of material facts present here​ ​Conclusion​ ​dismissed the revision petition.​ ​47. B.H. Ravindra Pai v. Smt. K. Sulochana Bhandarkar​​(Order 18)​ ​Facts​ ​ plaintiff filed a lawsuit where the burden of proof was split across multiple issues. Before the​ A ​defendant began presenting evidence, the plaintiff filed a formal memo reserving her right to produce​ ​rebuttal evidence later. The trial court proceeded to record the defendant's evidence but failed to pass​ ​an explicit written order accepting the plaintiff's memo. When the plaintiff later attempted to present​ ​ er rebuttal evidence, the defendant objected, arguing that the right was lost because the court had not​ h ​formally granted the reservation beforehand.​ ​Issue​ ​Is a party's statutory right to lead rebuttal evidence forfeited if they make a timely request, but the trial​ c​ ourt omits to pass a formal order on it before the opposing party begins?​ ​Rule​ ​ rder 18 Rule 3 of the CPC: Allows a party the option to reserve evidence on issues where the burden​ O ​of proof lies on the opposing party.​ ​ egal Maxim (Actus curiae neminem gravabit): An act or omission of the court shall prejudice no​ L ​person.​ ​Analysis​ ​ he High Court held that the plaintiff fulfilled her procedural obligation by filing the reservation​ T ​memo before the defendant started leading evidence. The failure to record a formal order on that memo​ ​was an administrative oversight by the judge, not a fault of the litigant. A party cannot be stripped of​ ​their legal rights or penalized due to a judicial omission.​ ​ he plaintiff's right to lead rebuttal evidence was upheld. The court ruled that a timely reservation​ T ​request is valid even if the trial court fails to pass an immediate, explicit order on it.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Revision petition dismissed.​ ​48. Altaf Hussain v. Nasreen Zahra​​(Order 18)​ ​Facts​ ​A plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that she was unmarried, claiming that the defendant​ ​ as using a forged marriage certificate to blackmail her family. The defendant insisted the marriage​ w ​was valid, presenting a certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act. During the trial, a forensic​ ​handwriting expert used a super-imposition test to analyze the signatures. The test showed that the​ ​disputed signature on the certificate and the plaintiff's genuine specimen signature matched perfectly,​ ​down to the exact millimeter, when placed on top of each other. The trial court decreed the suit in the​ ​plaintiff's favour, which the defendant appealed.​ ​Issue​ ​ nder Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC, can a trial court recall a witness at its own initiative even​ U ​after the evidence phase has concluded?​ ​ o the litigating parties possess an automatic statutory right to cross-examine a witness who is​ D ​recalled by the court under this provision?​ ​Rule​ ​ rder XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC:​​The court may, at​​any stage of a suit, recall any witness​ O ​who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence) put such questions to him as​ ​the court thinks fit.​ ​ iscretionary Limit:​​The power under Rule 17 is entirely​​discretionary. It is a provision​ D ​intended for the court's own clarification to remove ambiguities, not a tool for litigating​ ​parties to introduce fresh evidence or patch up omissions (​​lacunae​​) in their case.​ ​Analysis​ ​ iming of the Recall:​​The Allahabad High Court analyzed​​the plain language of Order​ T ​XVIII Rule 17 and determined that the phrase "at any stage of the suit" is expansive. A trial​ ​judge is legally empowered to exercise this discretion at any time before the final judgment is​ ​pronounced, including during the argument stage.​ ​ o Inherent Right to Cross-Examine:​​The High Court​​clarified that when a witness is​ N ​recalled​​by the court​​under Rule 17 to clear its own​​doubts, the proceeding is under judicial​ ​direction. Litigants​​do not have an automatic right​​to cross-examine​​the recalled witness​ ​on the court's questions unless the presiding judge explicitly grants leave to do so.​ ​ revention of Lacunae:​​The court emphasized that this​​power must be exercised judicially​ P ​and sparingly. While the court properly used it here to interpret scientific data already on​ ​record, the rule cannot be invoked at the behest of a negligent party as a back-door​ ​mechanism to fill gaps in their evidence once their case has closed.​ ​Conclusion​ ​The High Court dismissed the procedural objection and upheld the trial court's actions.​ ​Session 28: Adjournments and Affidavits​ ​Orders 17 and 19 of CPC; Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023​ ​Adjournments – Order 17​ -​ ​ ​General rule.​​Once the court starts hearing​​a suit it continues till final disposal. Where the​ ​hearing of evidence has begun, it shall be continued day to day, and adjournment granted only for​ ​unavoidable reasons.​ -​ ​ ​Discretion.​​To grant or refuse an adjournment​​is at the discretion of the court. The power is not​ ​subject to definite rules but must be exercised judicially and reasonably on the facts of each case.​ ​The provision limiting adjournments is not ultra vires or unconstitutional.​ -​ ​ ​When granted.​​Sickness of a party, his witness​​or his advocate; non-service of summons;​ ​reasonable time for preparation of the case; withdrawal of appearance by a pleader at the last​ ​moment; inability of counsel to conduct the case; inability of a party to engage another advocate.​ -​ ​ ​When refused.​​Engagement of an advocate in​​another court; strike by lawyers; dilatory conduct​ ​of a party or his advocate; non-examination or refusal to cross-examine a witness present in court;​ ​abuse of process; an undertaking on an earlier occasion to proceed; inconvenience to the opposite​ ​ arty or his witnesses; the case being very old; the matter being first on board; the arguments of the​ p ​other side being over; interlocutory proceedings.​ -​ ​ ​The court must first find whether the ground​​urged is factually correct, and then whether it is​ ​sufficient. Past adjournments are no ground to refuse a fresh one if the ground now urged is itself​ ​sufficient. Equally, the court should not grant an adjournment where sufficient cause is absent, even​ ​on payment of costs.​ -​ ​ ​Maximum adjournments.​​The proviso to Rule 1(1),​​inserted by the Amendment Act, 1999,​ ​permits a maximum of three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit.​ -​ ​ ​Last adjournment.​​An order granting a ‘last​​adjournment’ is not ex facie illegal, and on the​ ​adjourned date the court may insist that the party proceed. But if an adjournment is then sought on a​ ​valid and reasonable ground, it cannot be refused solely because the previous one was a last chance.​ -​ ​ ​Reasons and costs.​​The court must record reasons​​for granting an adjournment, and shall direct​ ​the party seeking it to pay costs or higher costs. The amount must be reasonable and commensurate​ ​with the costs incurred by the other side, and is not to be imposed as a penalty.​ -​ ​ ​Failure to appear – Rule 2.​​Where parties fail​​to appear on the adjourned day, the court may​ ​dispose of the suit in one of the modes under Order 9, or proceed in the absence of a party whose​ ​evidence or a substantial part of it has already been recorded as if that party were present, or make​ ​such other order as it thinks fit.​ -​ ​ ​Rule 3.​​Where a party to whom time has been​​granted fails to produce his evidence, to cause the​ ​attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary for the further progress of the suit,​ ​the court may decide the suit forthwith if the parties are present, or proceed under Rule 2 if any of​ ​them is absent.​ ​Affidavits – Order 19​ -​ ​ ​The Code does not define ‘affidavit’. It is​​commonly understood as a sworn statement in writing​ ​made under oath or on affirmation before an authorised officer or Magistrate.​ -​ ​ ​Stated simply, it is a declaration of facts​​made in writing and sworn before a person having​ ​authority to administer an oath. Every affidavit should be drawn in the first person and should​ ​contain only facts, not inferences.​ ​-​ ​Essentials​ ​-​ ​it must be a declaration made by a person;​ ​-​ ​it must relate to facts;​ ​-​ ​it must be in writing;​ ​-​ ​it must be in the first person;​ ​-​ ​it must be sworn or affirmed before a Magistrate​​or other authorised officer.​ -​ ​ ​Contents.​​An affidavit should be confined to​​facts the deponent can prove of his personal​ ​knowledge. Rule 3(1) allows statements based on belief in interlocutory applications. Where an​ ​averment is not on personal knowledge, the source of information must be clearly disclosed.​ -​ ​ ​Evidence on affidavit – Rules 1 to 3.​​Ordinarily​​a fact is proved by oral evidence, since​ ​affidavits are not ‘evidence’ within Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Order 19 Rule 1 is an exception:​ ​the court may order that a particular fact be proved by affidavit, subject to the right of the opposite​ ​party to have the deponent produced for cross-examination.​ -​ ​ ​A party wishing to controvert averments in the opposite party’s affidavit must either file an​ ​affidavit in reply or cross-examine the deponent. Failing that, the court is entitled to come to its own​ ​finding.​ -​ ​ ​Counsel has a duty to advise the client on​​verification. The client should swear only to what he​ ​knows to be true, and what he believes to be true should be stated separately.​ -​ ​ ​Affidavits not properly verified or not in​​conformity with the rules are liable to be rejected,​ ​though the court may instead give an opportunity to file a proper affidavit.​ -​ ​ ​Interlocutory applications which do not finally​​determine any right, such as attachment before​ ​judgment, interim injunction or appointment of a receiver, are ordinarily decided on affidavits.​ -​ ​ ​Perjury.​​A false affidavit attracts prosecution​​for giving false evidence. See Section 227 of the​ ​Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.​ ​49. Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India​​(Order 17 Rule 1 proviso;​ ​Order 6 Rule 17 proviso; Order 8 Rules 1 and 10)​ ​ eading down the amendments of 1999 and 2002 to save their validity interest of justice takes​ R ​precedence over the time limit provided by the amendment.​ ​Facts​ ​A challenge to the amendments made to the Code by the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002.​ ​Issue​ ​ hether the caps and time limits introduced by the amendments, including the​ W ​three-adjournment limit, are constitutionally valid and mandatory in every case.​ ​Rule​ ​ he provisions are valid, but discretionary powers are to be read down so that they do not​ T ​defeat justice in extreme and exceptional circumstances.​ ​Analysis​ ​ n adjournments, the Court held that in extreme and exceptional circumstances the strict​ O ​three-adjournment rule does not apply. By reading down the discretionary power to grant​ ​adjournments, the validity of the provision can be sustained.​​"Exceptional circumstances" or​ ​situations beyond the control of a party justify relaxing strict procedural caps, specifically​ ​regarding adjournments and time limits​ ​ n written statements, the Court harmoniously construed Order 8 Rules 1, 9 and 10. Rule 10​ O ​provides that where a party fails to present the written statement within the time permitted, the​ ​court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order as it thinks fit. That discretion​ ​shows the time limit in Rule 1 is not absolute for ordinary civil suits.​ ​ n amendment, the Court upheld the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, noting that its object is to​ O ​prevent frivolous applications filed to delay trial and to require parties to act with due diligence.​ ​Conclusion​ ​The amendments stand, subject to the court retaining discretion in exceptional cases.​ ​Module 11: Commissions​ ​Session 29: Commissions​ ​Sections 75 to 78 and Order 26 of CPC​ ​Purpose of commissions​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ ourts delegate convenient tasks to appointed commissioners, who act as court officers within​ C ​granted powers.​ ​Power is discretionary and cannot generate evidence or replace a party's burden of proof.​ ​Grounds for issue – Section 75​ ​-​ ​ o examine persons, conduct local or expert investigations, inspect accounts, make partitions, sell​ T ​decaying property in court custody, or perform ministerial acts.​ ​Kinds of commissions – Order 26​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ itness examination:​​Used for exempt, sick, infirm,​​or non-resident persons (Ss. 76–78, Rules​ W ​1–8).​ ​Local investigation:​​Assists the court in understanding​​disputes, property value, profits, or​ ​damages (Rules 9–10).​ ​-​ ​ ther types:​​Adjusting accounts (Rules 11–12), partitioning property (Rules 13–14),​ O ​scientific/expert inquiries (Rule 10-A), ministerial acts (Rule 10-B), selling movables (Rule​ ​10-C), and foreign tribunal commissions (Rules 19–22).​ ​Procedure – Rules 16 to 18​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ ommissioners may examine witnesses/documents, enter land with permission, and proceed​​ex​ C ​parte​​if a party fails to appear.​ ​Reports and evidence taken form part of the record.​ ​Evidentiary value​ ​-​ ​ eports assist the court but do not bind it or replace independent proof by parties; courts may set​ R ​reports aside or examine commissioners.​ ​Expenses – Rule 15​ ​-​ ​ ourts may order the requesting party to deposit funds to cover expenses before issuing a​ C ​commission.​ ​50. Chandan Mull Indra Kumar v. Chiman Lal Girdhar Das Parekh​ ​(Order 26 Rule 10(2))​ ​Facts​ ​ he appellants filed a civil suit claiming title​​and damages for coal allegedly stolen from an​ T ​underground area crossing the boundary line between two villages. To determine the exact​ ​location and boundaries, the court appointed a Commissioner who conducted an elaborate,​ ​painstaking, and lengthy local survey. The trial court ultimately rejected the Commissioner's​ ​findings, substituting its own technical interpretations instead. The appellants challenged this​ ​rejection, and the case eventually reached the Privy Council.​ ​Issue​ ​ an a civil court independently overrule or discard​​the elaborate, technical findings of an​ C ​unquestioned Court Commissioner simply because the judge disagrees with the technical or​ ​scientific methodology used?​ ​Rule​ ​ court should not act as a technical or scientific expert when an elaborate, careful​ A ​investigation has been carried out by an administrative expert or surveyor.​ ​Analysis​ ​The Privy Council observed that the Commissioner had executed a long, careful, and​ e​ xhaustive local investigation to map the underground boundaries. The council ruled that it is​ ​highly unsafe for a judge to act as a technical expert and summarily brush aside an elaborate​ ​report prepared by an unquestioned professional. Interference with such comprehensive local​ ​investigations is highly deprecated unless the court can point to clearly defined, substantial,​ ​and compelling errors that completely invalidate the report's foundation. The Privy Council​ ​reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that a civil court must show strict deference to a​ ​long, careful local investigation. A Commissioner's report cannot be cast aside without​ ​substantial, proven grounds.​ ​Conclusion​ ​Appeal allowed.​ ​Module 12: Withdrawal and Compromise of the suit​ ​Session 30: Withdrawal and compromise of suit​ ​ORDER XXIII: WITHDRAWAL AND COMPROMISE OF SUITS​ ​Two Modes of Withdrawal​ -​ ​ ​-​ a​ bandonment of action or portion of claim with leave of the court;​ ​abandonment of action or portion of claim without leave of the court.​ ​Unilateral Withdrawal Without Court Leave — Rule 1(1) & (4)​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ ubsequent to institution, the plaintiff enjoys autonomy to abandon the suit or relinquish a portion​ S ​of the claim against any or all defendants, without requiring judicial leave.​ ​This entitlement is absolute and unrestricted; courts cannot compel continuation or deny​ ​withdrawal unless a vested right has already accrued in favor of the adversary.​ ​The procedural consequence is that the plaintiff is barred from initiating a fresh suit on the​ ​identical cause of action and remains subject to costs determined by the tribunal.​ ​Underlying Principle —​​Having invoked judicial process,​​a litigant cannot re-agitate the same​ ​matter anew after unilateral abandonment. This rests on the maxim​​invito beneficium non datur​ ​— the law does not compel a person to accept a benefit they do not desire.​ ​Rule 1-A —​​Upon withdrawal by the plaintiff, the court​​retains discretion to permit transposition​ ​of a defendant as a plaintiff.​ ​Withdrawal Subject to Judicial Permission — Rule 1(3)​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​ here the tribunal is satisfied that the proceeding must fail owing to a formal defect, or that​ W ​sufficient grounds warrant fresh litigation on the same subject-matter, it may grant liberty to file​ ​anew on appropriate terms.​ ​Formal Defect —​​Though unexpressed in the Code, it​​denotes technical or procedural infirmities​ ​not touching the core merits, such as statutory notice omission under Section 80, misjoinder,​ ​defective court fees, inadequate prayer, or absence of territorial competence.​ ​Substantive Defects (Not Formal) —​​Defects going to​​the root of the cause, such as non-joinder​ ​of necessary parties, failure to implead legal representatives, omission of causes of action, firm​ ​non-registration, limitation bar, deliberate under-valuation, or evidentiary insufficiency.​ ​Sufficient Grounds —​​This expression is wide and need​​not be restricted​​ejusdem generis​​with​ ​'formal defect'.​ ​Rule 1(5) —​​In co-plaintiff actions, a single plaintiff​​cannot withdraw without the consent of all​ ​co-plaintiffs.​ ​A fresh suit instituted pursuant to judicial leave remains fully governed by the ordinary law of​ ​limitation as if the former proceeding had not been brought.​ ​Compromise and Settlement — Rules 3 to 3-B​ ​-​ ​ arties remain at liberty to adjust or resolve the dispute by mutual agreement post-institution, the​ P ​general mandate being that arbitrable issues in a suit can be validly compromised.​ ​-​ ​Rule 3 applies when the court is satisfied that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part through​ ​a lawful written agreement signed by the parties, or where the defendant satisfies the claim in​ ​whole or in part.​ ​-​ ​Prerequisites —​​The settlement must be lawful, reduced​​to writing, duly signed by all parties,​ ​and directly connected to the subject matter of the suit.​ ​-​ ​Upon recording the compromise, the court issues a decree in conformity therewith; such decree​ ​operates as a contract between the litigants with the seal of the tribunal superadded, rather than an​ ​adjudication on the merits.​ ​-​ ​Procedural Safeguard (Rule 3 Proviso) —​​If one party​​asserts an adjustment while the other​ ​disputes it, the tribunal must adjudicate the question without granting routinely indulged​ ​adjournments.​ ​-​ ​Rule 3-A —​​An independent suit is expressly barred​​to set aside a decree on the assertion that the​ ​underlying compromise was unlawful.​ ​-​ ​Rule 3-B —​​No compromise in a representative suit​​can be effected without leave of the court,​ ​granted only after issuing notice to all interested persons.​ ​An aggrieved party's recourse lies before the court that recorded the consent decree, and an order​ ​refusing to record a compromise is appealable.