Chapters of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Notes

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is a legislation in India that governs the procedural aspects of
civil litigation. It is divided into various sections that outline the different stages and procedures
involved in civil cases.

Preliminary

It establishes the title and extent of the code, defines important terms used throughout the code,
and outlines the hierarchy of courts. Sections 1 to 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provide
an overview of the code and its applicability in civil cases.

Sections 1 to 3: These sections establish the scope, extent, and commencement of the Civil
Procedure Code. They state that the code applies to the whole of India (except Jammu and
Kashmir), defines key terms used in the code, and emphasizes the code's applicability to all civil
suits, subject to specific exemptions.

Sections 4 to 6: These sections address the hierarchy of laws and the relationship between the
code and other enactments. They establish the overriding effect of the code over other laws,
except special or local laws that are inconsistent with its provisions. They also grant the power to
extend the code's provisions to courts other than the High Court.

Sections 7 to 9: These sections deal with the jurisdiction of courts in civil cases. They specify
how a suit should be filed in a court within whose territorial jurisdiction the defendant resides or
the cause of action arises, with exceptions for suits against multiple defendants. They also
establish the pecuniary jurisdiction of courts based on the value of the subject matter of the suit.

Collectively, these sections set the framework for the application and interpretation of the Civil
Procedure Code. They determine the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of courts, ensuring
uniformity in civil proceedings and providing guidelines for the institution of civil suits in India.
Part 1- Suits in General – Section 9 to 35

These sections in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provide guidelines and rules related to the
jurisdiction of courts, the valuation of suits, the determination of the place of institution, and the
transfer of suits. They aim to ensure fair and efficient administration of justice in civil cases,
promote access to remedies, and streamline the procedural aspects of civil litigation.

Sections 9 to 11: Deal with the pecuniary jurisdiction of courts. They specify the criteria for
determining the value of the subject matter in civil suits and establish the corresponding level of
court where the suit should be instituted based on its value. They also provide for the valuation
of suits involving multiple reliefs or properties.

Sections 12 to 14: Address the territorial jurisdiction of courts. They outline the rules for
determining the court within whose jurisdiction a suit should be filed when the defendant's
residence or the cause of action is spread across multiple jurisdictions. They also allow for
agreements between parties to confer jurisdiction on a particular court.

Sections 15 to 20: Cover the place of institution of suits. They establish the general rule that a
suit should be instituted in the court within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the suit is
situated. They provide exceptions and additional rules for suits involving immovable property,
suits for compensation for wrongs, and suits for movable property.

Sections 21 to 26: Deals with how the suits are instituted in cases. They specify the rules for
filing suits against the government, public officers, and foreign rulers. They also provide
guidelines for suits against corporations, joint owners, and trustees, as well as suits by or against
minors and persons of unsound mind.
Sections 27 to 30: Transfer of suits. They empower the courts to transfer suits from one court to
another if it is in the interest of justice or the convenience of parties. They also provide for the
transfer of suits on the application of parties or suo moto by the court.

Sections 31 to 35: Institution of summary suits. They establish a simplified procedure for the
recovery of certain types of debts or demands. Summary suits allow for the speedy resolution of
specific claims, with reduced formalities and quicker disposal of cases.

Part II- Execution – Section 36 to 74

These sections in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provide guidelines for the institution of a suit,
the verification and scrutiny of pleadings, the framing of issues, the production of documents, the
summoning and attendance of witnesses, the judgment and decree, and the relief in the form of
interest. They aim to ensure a fair and efficient administration of justice in civil cases and
promote access to remedies for litigants.

Sections 36 to 40: These sections pertain to the process of service of summons. They specify the
methods by which summons are to be served on defendants, including personal service,
substituted service, and service by post. They also outline the rules for summoning a defendant
residing in another jurisdiction and the consequences of improper or irregular service.

Sections 41 to 43: These sections deal with the appearance of parties in court. They require
defendants to appear before the court in response to a summons and allow for the court to
proceed ex parte if the defendant fails to appear. They also provide guidelines for the appearance
of parties through a recognized agent or a pleader.

Sections 44 to 49: These sections cover the arrest and detention of judgment debtors. They
outline the circumstances under which a judgment debtor may be arrested, specify the procedure
for execution of an arrest, and establish the rules regarding the release of a judgment debtor.

Sections 50 to 53: These sections address the attachment and sale of property in execution of
decrees. They describe the types of property that can be attached, the process of attachment, and
the sale of attached property to satisfy the decree. They also provide for the release of attached
property under certain circumstances.
Sections 54 to 60: These sections pertain to the process of attachment and sale in revenue cases.
They specify the procedure for the attachment and sale of immovable property in revenue cases
and outline the rules for conducting revenue sales.

Sections 61 to 69: These sections deal with the process of arrest and detention in execution of
decrees for the payment of money. They establish the circumstances under which a judgment
debtor may be arrested and detained, provide for the procedure of arrest and detention, and allow
for the release of the judgment debtor on specific conditions.

Sections 70 to 74: These sections cover miscellaneous provisions related to execution. They
address matters such as the transfer of decrees, the powers and duties of executing courts, the
recovery of costs in execution proceedings, and the consequences of disobedience or resistance
to the execution of a decree.

Part III- Incidental Proceedings- Sections 75 to 78

Enable the transfer of decrees for execution between courts. They allow for the efficient
enforcement of decrees by enabling their execution in courts that have jurisdiction over the area
where the judgment debtor's assets are located. The transfer of decrees ensures that the decree-
holder can pursue the execution of the decree effectively, even if it involves courts other than the
one that originally passed the decree.

Section 75 grants the right to appeal to any person who is aggrieved by a decree or order from
which an appeal is allowed by law. Section 76 outlines the procedure for filing an appeal,
requiring the appellant to submit a memorandum of appeal accompanied by a certified copy of
the decree or order appealed against. Section 77 focuses on the contents of the memorandum of
appeal, mandating the inclusion of grounds of objection or relief sought. Section 78 deals with
the power of the appellate court to frame issues and refer them for trial. It empowers the
appellate court to formulate and frame issues that are necessary for determining the matter at
hand, and if required, refer those issues for trial to the court of first instance. The section ensures
that the appellate court has the necessary tools to effectively decide the appeal.

Part IV – Suits in Particular cases Section 79 to 88

They cover the transfer of decrees, the execution of decrees in territories where the code does not
apply, the execution of decrees outside the territories where the code is in force, and the
attachment and sale of property. These provisions aim to ensure the effective enforcement of
judgments and decrees in civil cases.

Sections 79 to 82: These sections address the transfer of decrees for execution. Section 79 allows
the court that passed a decree to send it for execution to another court if the decree is of a nature
that falls under the jurisdiction of that other court. Section 80 provides the procedure for the
transfer of the decree, including the requirement to send a copy of the decree and the necessary
documents. Section 81 enables the court to whom the decree is transferred to execute it as if it
were passed by that court. Section 82 grants the court that passed the decree the power to recall
or modify the order of transfer.

Sections 83 to 85: These sections deal with the execution of decrees by courts in the territories to
which they are sent for execution. Section 83 provides that the court receiving the decree for
execution shall have the same powers in executing it as if it were a decree passed by that court.
Section 84 outlines the procedure for the execution of decrees, including issuing notices and
taking necessary steps. Section 85 enables the court executing the decree to send any question
arising in the execution proceedings to the court that passed the decree for its determination.

Sections 86 to 88: These sections cover the execution of decrees passed by courts in
reciprocating territories. Section 86 allows for the execution of decrees passed by courts in
certain territories with which the Central Government has entered into reciprocal arrangements.
Section 87 provides for the procedure of executing such decrees, including the filing of certified
copies and the issuance of notices. Section 88 enables the court executing the decree to send any
question arising in the execution proceedings to the court that passed the decree for its
determination.

Part V – Special Proceedings- Sections 89 to 93

This part promotes the use of alternative dispute resolution methods in civil cases. They allow
the court to suggest and refer parties to ADR mechanisms, facilitate the filing and enforceability
of settlement agreements, recognize and enforce arbitration agreements, and treat arbitration
awards as decrees of the court. These provisions aim to encourage parties to resolve their
disputes outside of traditional litigation, promoting quicker and more cost-effective resolution of
civil disputes.

Sections 89 and 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure pertain to the reference of disputes to
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods. Section 89 empowers the court to suggest
settlement through arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, or mediation and allows for the
formulation of settlement terms and referral to an appropriate ADR forum. Section 90 allows the
court to refer cases to arbitration or conciliation if there is an arbitration agreement between the
parties.

Section 91 establishes the procedure for filing a settlement agreement reached through ADR. It
enables parties to apply to the court for a decree in accordance with the settlement, which
becomes enforceable as a decree of the court. Sections 92 and 93 focus on the effect and
enforceability of arbitration agreements and awards. Section 92 recognizes an arbitration
agreement as a commitment between parties to submit disputes to arbitration. It clarifies that any
reference to arbitration is considered a reference to the arbitration process. Section 93 states that
an arbitration award, when filed in court, is treated as a decree of the court, providing it with the
necessary enforceability.

Part VI – Supplemental Proceedings -Sections 94&95

This part provides the court with the power to grant temporary injunctions and make
interlocutory orders. Temporary injunctions are issued to prevent harm or protect the rights of a
party, while interlocutory orders serve to maintain the status quo or ensure justice is not defeated.
These provisions allow the court to take appropriate measures during the pendency of a suit to
ensure fairness and protect the interests of the parties involved.

Section 94 allows the court to attach various types of movable property, such as agricultural
produce, livestock, machinery, or vehicles, belonging to the judgment debtor. The section
outlines the procedure for attachment and sale, including issuing a proclamation of the intended
sale and notifying the judgment debtor and other interested parties. Section 95 addresses the
attachment and sale of immovable property to satisfy a decree. It empowers the court to attach
and sell immovable property, including land, buildings, and property attached to the earth. The
section also allows the court or a person appointed by the court to determine the market value of
the property.

Part VII- Appeals from original Decrees – Sections 96 to 112

These sections define the right to appeal, specifying the grounds on which an appeal can be
made, and outline the powers of appellate courts. They also provide for the review of judgments
and orders under specific circumstances. These provisions aim to ensure that parties have
opportunities for redressal and the ability to seek a reevaluation of decisions made in civil cases.

Section 96 grants the right to appeal to any person aggrieved by a decree, subject to the
conditions specified in the code or other laws. Section 97 specifies the scope of the appeal,
allowing the appellate court to pass any decree or order that the court of first instance could have
passed or made. Section 98 provides for the power of the appellate court to order a new trial if it
deems it necessary. Section 99 allows the appellate court to exercise any powers vested in the
court of first instance when the order is appealed against. Section 100 deals with second appeals,
allowing them to be filed before the High Court on certain grounds, such as involving a
substantial question of law or a material defect in the procedure. Section 101 enables the High
Court to hear and decide a second appeal from the decision of a subordinate appellate court.

Section 103 allows the High Court to call for and examine the records of any case decided by a
subordinate court. Section 104 empowers the High Court to pass orders as it deems fit based on
the examination of records. Section 105 enables the High Court to take additional evidence if
necessary. Section 106 allows the High Court to frame issues for determination in certain
circumstances. Section 107 grants the High Court the power to call for and examine the records
of any case decided by any subordinate court. Section 108 allows the High Court to pass
appropriate orders based on its examination of the records. Sections 109 to 112 further define the
scope and limitations of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Part VIII – Reference, Review, Revision – Sections 113 to 115

These provisions ensure that parties have an opportunity to seek a review or revision of
judgments and orders in appropriate circumstances. They aim to rectify errors, consider new
evidence, and address any irregularities in the proceedings, thereby promoting the principles of
justice and fairness in the civil litigation process.

Section 113 of the Civil Procedure Code allows a party to apply for a review of a judgment or
order under specific circumstances. Section 114 sets out the grounds on which a review can be
sought, such as the discovery of new evidence or an error that is evident on the face of the
record. This section provides a mechanism for parties to request a reexamination of the decision
based on valid grounds. Additionally, Section 115 grants the High Court revisional jurisdiction,
empowering it to examine the legality, regularity, or material irregularity in the exercise of
jurisdiction by subordinate courts. This section enables the High Court to review and correct any
errors or irregularities committed by lower courts within its jurisdiction.

Part IX - Special Provisions Relating to the High courts not being the code of a judicial
commissioner – Sections 116 to 120

This part aims to provide flexibility to the parties in resolving their disputes by allowing them to
withdraw or compromise suits, thereby promoting the efficient and amicable resolution of civil
cases.

Section 116 allows the plaintiff to unilaterally withdraw a suit without seeking permission from
the court by filing a notice of withdrawal. Section 117 clarifies that the withdrawal of a suit does
not prevent the plaintiff from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action, unless it is barred
by the law of limitation. Section 118 deals with the withdrawal of a suit with the permission of
the court. It enables a plaintiff to seek the court's permission to withdraw a suit, subject to certain
conditions. Section 119 addresses the compromise of suits. It states that parties can reach a
compromise at any stage of the suit, and the court will record the terms of the compromise as an
agreement between the parties. Section 120 specifies the effect of a compromise. It states that a
compromise has the same effect as a decree, and the court will pass a decree based on the terms
of the compromise.
Part X- Rules- Sections 121 to 130

It outlines the procedures for the execution of decrees. They cover the transfer and transmission
of decrees, the modes of execution including delivery of property, attachment and sale of
property, and the arrest and detention of judgment debtors. These provisions ensure the
enforcement of decrees and the realization of the rights and remedies granted by the courts. It's
important to note that the specific details and procedures for the execution of decrees may vary
depending on the nature of the decree, the jurisdiction, and other relevant factors.

Sections 121 to 124 of this Code address the transfer and transmission of decrees. Section 121
enables a court that passed a decree to send it for execution to another court within its
jurisdiction. Section 122 deals with the transfer of decrees to courts in other territories under
specific conditions. Section 123 provides for the transmission of decrees to courts in other
territories for execution. Section 124 allows the court executing a decree to inquire into questions
related to the transfer or transmission of the decree.

Sections 125 to 130 pertain to the enforcement and methods of execution of decrees. Section 125
specifies various modes of execution, such as the delivery of property, attachment and sale of
property, and the arrest and detention of judgment debtors. Section 126 outlines the process of
delivering movable property in execution. Section 127 allows the court to order the attachment
and sale of immovable property. Section 128 deals with the arrest and detention of judgment
debtors. Section 129 provides for the arrest and detention of judgment debtors in prison. Section
130 allows the court to release a judgment debtor from arrest under certain circumstances. These
sections provide the legal framework for enforcing and executing decrees issued by the court.

Part XI- Miscellaneous – Sections 131 to 158

Provides a framework for the correction of errors and the exercise of the inherent powers of the
court to prevent abuse of the court's process and to secure the ends of justice. They also ensure
that parties have a right to appeal and that appellate procedures are followed. These provisions
help to ensure that the judicial system operates fairly and efficiently.
Sections 131 to 133: These sections deal with the review of orders. Section 131 allows a court to
review its own order if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Section 132 provides
for the review of an order passed by a subordinate court by a superior court. Section 133
specifies the circumstances under which a court may review its own order.

Sections 134 to 148: These sections relate to the revision of orders. Section 134 allows a High
Court to call for the record of any case decided by a subordinate court in which no appeal lies to
the High Court. Section 135 specifies the circumstances under which a High Court may exercise
its revisional jurisdiction. Section 136 provides for the powers of the High Court while
exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Sections 137 to 139 outline the procedures for the filing of
revision applications. Sections 140 to 148 deal with the orders that a High Court may pass while
exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

Sections 149 to 153: These sections provide for the inherent powers of the court. Section 149
allows a court to exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of the court's process and to secure
the ends of justice. Sections 150 to 153 specify the powers of the court while exercising its
inherent jurisdiction.

Sections 154 to 158: These sections deal with appeals. Section 154 provides for the right to
appeal. Sections 155 to 157 specify the appellate procedures, including the time within which an
appeal must be filed, the contents of the appeal, and the powers of the appellate court. Section
158 allows the court to pass any order necessary for the disposal of an appeal.
 Note on Section 9A

Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was added through the Code of Civil Procedure
(Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1970. This amendment repealed any amendments made by state
legislatures before the commencement of the Amendment Act that were inconsistent with it. As a
result, the State Legislature re-enacted Section 9A through the Code of Civil Procedure
(Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977. The re-enactment was done with the assent of the
President of India in accordance with Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, which deals
with situations where state and central laws conflict.

Section 9A of the Code provides that where an application has been made for granting or setting
aside an order granting any interim relief in a suit, and if either of the parties challenge the
jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit, the Court would have to decide the preliminary
issue of jurisdiction before deciding the application for interim relief. The purpose of this section
is to avoid situations where parties are put to the expense and delay of litigating interim relief
applications before the court has determined its jurisdiction over the suit.

This section was introduced as a response to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay
in the case of Institute Indo-Portuguese v. Theotonio Borges. In that case, the High Court held
that when an applicant seeks the appointment of a receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code,
the Court assumes that the suit has been filed before the appropriate Court and proceeds on that
assumption. Therefore, the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit
would not be maintainable in such proceedings.

It presented challenges for litigants. When an issue is raised under Section 9A, the court is
required to decide the preliminary issue before proceeding with the motion. This can lead to the
motion being pending indefinitely, and it can also result in multiple proceedings as the order on
the preliminary issue is challenged in higher forums. Due to these difficulties, the state
legislature has deemed it necessary to remove Section 9A from the Code.

Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("the Code") has been deleted by virtue of the
promulgation of Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 ("the said
Ordinance") on 27th June, 2018. The said Ordinance deletes Section 9A of the Code of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908.

The promulgation of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Ordinance, 2018
was done by the Governor of the State of Maharashtra with the prior assent of the President of
India. This was necessary as the amendment falls under Entry 13 of the Concurrent List provided
in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The promulgation of the ordinance is in
accordance with the proviso to Clause (3) of Article 213 of the Constitution of India. Since the
ordinance has already received the prior approval of the President, there is no need for further
reservation of the ordinance for the President's assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
 LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

Section 9 – Laxmi Chand v. Gram Panchayat

In the case of Laxmi Chand v. Gram Panchayat, the dispute revolved around the eviction of the
plaintiff, Laxmi Chand, from a piece of land by the Gram Panchayat (village local government).
The Gram Panchayat claimed that Laxmi Chand had illegally encroached upon the land and
sought his eviction. The court examined the evidence and found that Laxmi Chand had, indeed,
encroached upon the land without lawful authority. The court noted that the Gram Panchayat was
the rightful owner and custodian of the village common land, and it had the power to evict
encroachers.
The court held that the Gram Panchayat's decision to evict Laxmi Chand was valid and justified.
The court emphasized that the rights of the Gram Panchayat as the custodian of village land
should be respected, and unauthorized occupation or encroachment on such land should not be
allowed. Furthermore, the court observed that Laxmi Chand had failed to provide any evidence
or legal basis to support his claim over the land. As a result, the court upheld the Gram
Panchayat's decision and ordered Laxmi Chand's eviction from the encroached land.
In summary, the court ruled in favor of the Gram Panchayat in the case of Laxmi Chand v. Gram
Panchayat, holding that Laxmi Chand had unlawfully encroached upon village common land.
The court upheld the Gram Panchayat's authority to evict encroachers and ordered Laxmi
Chand's eviction from the land. The judgment emphasized the importance of respecting the rights
of the custodian of village land and preventing unauthorized occupation or encroachment.

Section 9A- Foreshore Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Praveen D. Desai, 2008
In the case of Foreshore Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Praveen D. Desai, the dispute
centered around the possession of a parking space by Praveen D. Desai, a member of the
cooperative housing [Link] court examined the facts of the case and determined that
Praveen D. Desai was allotted the parking space by the society. However, the society later
attempted to take back the parking space, claiming that it was allotted to Desai by mistake.
The court held that once the parking space was allotted to Desai, it became his property right,
and the society could not unilaterally withdraw or revoke the allotment without any legal basis.
The court emphasized that such actions would be arbitrary and against the principles of natural
justice. Additionally, the court noted that the society's argument that the allotment was a mistake
lacked merit because Desai had relied upon the allotment and had been using the parking space
for a considerable period of time. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Praveen D. Desai,
declaring that he had a valid right to the parking space allotted to him by the cooperative housing
society. The judgment emphasized the importance of respecting property rights and preventing
arbitrary revocation of allotments without proper legal grounds.
In summary, the court in the case of Foreshore Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Praveen D.
Desai upheld Praveen D. Desai's right to the parking space allotted to him by the society. The
court ruled that once an allotment is made, it cannot be revoked without valid legal grounds and
without considering the principles of natural justice.

Section 10 – V.P. Vrinda vs K. Indira Devi And Ors.

The correction candidate for this situation is the second respondent in Unique Area 811 of 1993
and the applicant in I.A. 3082 of 1993. She requested a stay of all further proceedings in the suit
until the outcome of O.S. 106 of 1993, which she had initiated, by filing a petition in accordance
with Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). In any case, the learned Munsiff didn't
permit the request for stay yet permitted the union of the two suits. In the revision, the petitioner
challenges this order.
The parties and subject matter of both suits are virtually identical. The plaintiffs in O.S. 811 of
1993 are the defendants in O.S. 106 of 1993; the plaintiff and her husband are the defendants.
The amendment candidate guarantees that the second respondent in O.S. 811 of 1993 has no free
case and is caring for the property as her significant other. A decree of permanent injunction is
the goal of both suits.
Section 10 of the C.P.C. can be used because all conditions have been met. According to Section
10, the parties or their representatives must be involved in both suits, identity of title must be
agitated, and the issue in the earlier suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the
subsequent suit. The fact that the petition does not include a copy of the plaint in O.S. 106 of
1993 does not make it possible to maintain the petition. The allegations made in the affidavit
submitted in this case demonstrate the petitioner's claim in O.S. 106 of 1993. Hence, the request
isn't excused on the ground of not delivering the duplicate of the plaint or not documenting a
composed assertion in O.S. 811 of 1993.
O.S. 106 of 1993 directly and substantially addresses the issue at hand in this case. While the
reason for activity may not be indistinguishable, Area 10 of the C.P.C. doesn't need personality
of the reason for activity. The possession of the respective plaintiffs on the date of institution of
the suits is what matters, and a decision regarding possession in one suit will have a significant
impact on the other suit. The petition filed under Section 10 asks for a halt to all further
litigation. However, Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code only permits a stay of the suit's trial.
Regardless of whether the preliminary is remained, the court holds purview to pass interlocutory
orders like directives, arrangement of recipients, or orders of connection before judgment.
Consequently, the court can engage interlocutory applications while the preliminary is remained.
In view of these contentions, the court saves the upbraided request and stays the preliminary of
O.S. 811 of 1993 until the removal of O.S. 106 of 1993. The court clarifies that the trial stay will
not affect its jurisdiction to consider interlocutory applications like injunctions.

Section 11 – K.T. Suresh Kumar v. P. Kunhappa Nair

In the case of K.T. Suresh Kumar v. P. Kunhappa Nair, the dispute centered around the
ownership of a property. The plaintiff, K.T. Suresh Kumar, claimed that he had purchased the
property from the defendant, P. Kunhappa Nair, and sought a declaration of ownership. The
court examined the evidence presented and found that the plaintiff had indeed purchased the
property from the defendant. The court observed that there was a valid agreement of sale
between the parties, and the plaintiff had fulfilled all the necessary requirements for a valid
transfer of ownership.
However, the defendant disputed the sale and claimed that the agreement of sale was invalid.
The defendant argued that the agreement was executed under coercion and duress, and therefore,
it should not be enforced. After considering the arguments and evidence, the court held that the
defendant failed to establish that the agreement of sale was executed under coercion or duress.
The court found that the agreement was voluntarily entered into by both parties and that the
plaintiff had fulfilled his obligations under the agreement. Consequently, the court declared the
plaintiff as the rightful owner of the property and directed the defendant to hand over possession
of the property to the plaintiff.
In summary, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, K.T. Suresh Kumar, in the case of K.T.
Suresh Kumar v. P. Kunhappa Nair, recognizing his ownership rights over the property. The
court rejected the defendant's claim that the agreement of sale was invalid and held that the
plaintiff had lawfully acquired the property. The judgment ordered the defendant to transfer
possession of the property to the plaintiff.

Section 27 T. Rangayya Reddy vs V.S. Subramanya Aiyar And Ors.

A member of an undivided Hindu family for specific performance of a contract to sell his share.
The creator examines the reasonability of joining different individuals from the family as
litigants in such a suit to get segment and ownership of the supposed seller's portion.
It isn't reasonable to join different individuals from the family as litigants in a suit for explicit
execution fully intent on getting segment and ownership of the seller's portion as against them.
The author argues that if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate his contract, the other members of the
family—who were not parties to the alleged contract—should not be required to defend a
partition suit. The author is of the opinion that partition suits can be difficult to navigate and
ought not to be considered merely an add-on to a suit for specific performance.
The rule established in Tasker v. Small states that a purchaser cannot enforce equities attaching
to the property against strangers to the contract before the contract is carried out. The author also
makes reference to this rule. The creator refers to different cases and specialists to help the view
that it isn't admissible to bring suits against people who are aliens to the agreement and have no
reason for activity at the date of the suit.
The Civil Procedure Code's Order I and the Specific Relief Act's Section 27 regarding the joining
of parties to a lawsuit. The rules for joining parties have been expanded to include defendants
against whom it is alleged that there is a right to relief arising from the same act or transaction.

Section 28 C.S. Govindaraja Mudaliar, ... vs Alagappa Thambiran And Ors.

In this case, the Full Bench had to decide if a suit brought by a Receiver of temple properties to
set aside leases granted by a previous trustee of the temple and to recover the demised portions
from tenants was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Section 92 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, which permits the drafting of a plan and the removal of a trustee, was the basis
for the lawsuit. The leases granted by the previous trustee were challenged by the plaintiff, who
had been appointed Receiver, on the grounds that they exceeded the trustee's authority. The
defendants argued that the leases were legitimate and that the plaintiff could only request a
shorter lease term at most. In the case, there were common questions of law and fact that all of
the defendants had to answer.

The Full Bench looked at Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lets defendants
and causes of action join together in a lawsuit. They noted that two requirements must be met
before this rule can be applied: 1) the help guaranteed should emerge from a progression of acts
or exchanges associated with one another, and (2) there should be a typical inquiry of regulation
or reality in the suit. The Full Bench came to the conclusion that both requirements were met in
this case. The judges cited precedents from Madras and Calcutta that supported defendant joinder
in cases involving improper property alienations. They stressed the solidarity of title in the
current case, as the offended party professed to be the appropriate delegate of the sanctuary
home. The leases conceded by the past legal administrator shaped a progression of exchanges
that were comparable and relied upon the powers of that legal administrator. As a result, the Full
Bench decided that Rule 3 of Order 1 was applicable and that the lawsuit was not bad for
misjoinder.
The Full Bench stated that it did not properly consider the scope and effect of Order 1, Rule 3, in
opposition to a case cited by the other side. They recognized it from the current case, where the
respondents were all renters holding under comparative leases conceded by the legal
administrator. It was concluded that the suit was not bad for parties and causes of action
misjoinder. They put away the request for the preliminary adjudicator and guided him to
continue with the further preliminary of the case.

Section 38 Dhruv Raj vs M/S Tagore Sr. Sec. School

Court request discarding an application recorded by the Judgment Debt holder (JD) under
various areas of the Common Strategy Code (CPC) and the Modern Debate Act, 1947. In a writ
petition, the application sought dismissal of the execution petition filed by the court to carry out
an order issued by the Delhi High Court.
The court recognizes the contentions raised by the two players and looks at the pertinent
arrangements of the Modern Question Act. In support of its reasoning, it cites decisions from the
Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Delhi High Court. According to the Industrial
Dispute Act, the court concludes that the Delhi High Court's decision can be implemented as a
civil court decree. It mentions that the JD had previously sought execution from the Labour
Court; however, the Labour Court rejected the execution petition and instructed the DH (Decree
Holder) to go to the civil court. The court believes that the Labour Court's failure to transmit the
award or order was merely an irregularity and not a legality that would invalidate its jurisdiction.
In addition, the court mentions that the JD has accepted the court's jurisdiction and taken
advantage of the opportunity to obtain a stay on the execution proceedings based on settlement
talks. After accepting the court's jurisdiction and making partial payments, the court argues that
the JD is prevented from raising the issue of jurisdiction. It is vital to take note of that the gave
text is just a little piece of the total request, and the setting might be important to completely
comprehend the case and the court's thinking.
Section 39 Mahesh Fabrics (P) Ltd. And Anr. vs Nirma Corporation And Anr
A court order concerning the implementation of a money decree. It gives an outline of the case,
including the exchange of the pronouncement starting with one court then onto the next for
execution and the protests raised by the judgment debt holder. Additionally, the document
discusses the jurisdictional issues and both parties' arguments.
The court presumes that the revisionist judgment borrower ought to have really expressed their
resources or scarcity in that department inside the regional purview of the executing transferee
court. It finds no proof that the revelation of resources or scarcity in that department would have
brought about a disappointment of equity.
The court has concluded that Rule 41 of the Common Technique Code (C.P.C) should not be
interpreted in a way that would usurp legislative authority. The court should pick a translation
that is in accordance with reason and equity, and the goal of the C.P.C.'s amendments is to speed
up the execution of decrees. The transferee court cannot challenge the judgment-debtor's
residence or assets, and the court finds that the correction needs merit and excuses it, forcing
costs on the revisionist judgment-borrower.

Section 45 Paul Tushar Biswas vs Addl. Dist. Judge And Anr

The petitioner is an Indian National residing in California in the United States of America and is
serving the Sheriffs Department of the County of Fresno, California. The parties were married on
4.10.1990 at All Saints Church, Shillong, under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872. The child, a
minor, is presently residing with the mother, respondent No. 2. In 1999, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 10 of the Divorce Act in the Court of the District Judge at Alipore,
West Bengal, praying for a decree for divorce. The petitioner failed to contest the proceedings.
On the initiative of the respondent No. 2, a proceeding for child support was commenced before
the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, wherein the Fresno County Superior Court
directed the petitioner to pay a monthly support amount of $ 500 payable w.e.f. 1.2.2002 in
favour of the minor son.
The prerequisites for the execution of a decree issued by an Indian court outside the country are
outlined in Section 45 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). There was evidence that
India and the State of California did not reciprocate, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that
the essential conditions for execution outside of India were met. The authorities cited in the case
were deemed irrelevant because they dealt with the execution of foreign court judgments in India
under Section 44A of the CPC. It was thought that the petitioner's actions of resisting the
California proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens—a doctrine that allows a court
to dismiss a case if another forum is more appropriate—were inconsistent with his claimed
concern for paying child support through an Indian court order. It was suggested that the
petitioner's actions were motivated by the California court's support order because the petitioner
did not attempt to provide the child with maintenance prior to filing the application with the
Shillong Court. The court concluded that the petitioner's concern before the Shillong Court was
ostentatious and not genuine due to the petitioner's resistance to the California proceedings and
his attempt to obtain a separate order from the Shillong Court. The court expressed that there was
no rationale or reasoning in permitting equal procedures on a similar issue under the steady gaze
of the Shillong Court.
The court discovered that the decried request (the request being tested) contained no basic
legitimate or procedural blunders, and in this way, the appeal was excused. In the case, there
were no costs imposed.

Section 52 Khaja Begum vs Gulam Mohiuddin And Ors.

The petitioner claimed that he borrowed Rs. and filed a Small Causes Suit against the first
defendant, Ghulam Mohiuddin. 750 and signed a receipt and promissory note in the petitioner's
favor. Rs. was paid in part by the defendant. 25 and supported it on the rear of the promissory
note. Despite repeated demands, the defendant nonetheless failed to pay the remaining amount.
The suit was petitioned for the recuperation of Rs. 725.
The court concurred with the applicant's advice and held that the suit could be treated as
legitimately organized against the lawful delegates of the departed respondent. They alluded to
the arrangements of Segment 153, which engage the court to alter imperfections and mistakes in
procedures to decide the genuine inquiry or issue between the gatherings. The court additionally
depended on past choices, including K. Ismail v. Pavu Amma and C. Raju v. D.D. Italia, which
upheld the view that the suit could be revised to incorporate the lawful delegates for however
long it was not banned by impediment.
All in all, the court held that the suit was legitimately organized against the lawful agents of the
departed litigant and that the lower court's choice to excuse the suit was mistaken. The court
granted the petition, reversed the lower court's decision, and remanded the case for further
consideration.
Section 60 T.R. Punnavanam Pillai vs V. Muthuswami Achari
The question of whether the tools of a goldsmith are exempt from attachment under Section
60(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code is the primary issue in this revision petition. Section 60
includes a list of properties that are subject to attachment and sale in execution of decrees, as
well as a provision that specifies various classes of properties that are not subject to attachment.
Statement (b) of Area 60(1) absolves the devices of craftsmans from connection.
The court determines the scope of the terms "artisan" and "tool" in relation to the second point.
The court concludes that excluding mechanical trade tools and limiting the definition of "tool" to
straightforward implements is unconstitutional. It cites previous decisions in which a sewing
machine was deemed an artisan's tool and a farm tractor was deemed an animal husbandry
implement. The court comes to the conclusion that the term "tools" in Section 60(1)(b) should
include mechanical tools used in a trade as well as simple tools used by artisans.
The question of whether a goldsmith is an artisan is more difficult to answer. The court takes
note of that there is no particular meaning of "craftsman" in the Common Strategy Code or any
focal authorization. It inspects different word reference definitions and past choices with regards
to this issue. The court concurs with the view that a craftsman is an individual participated in a
mechanical workmanship or exchange, a handicraftsman, or a repairman. Additionally, it points
out that the context in which the phrase "tools of artisans" appears in Section 60(1)(b) suggests
that the legislature intended to exclude only tools used by specific kinds of workers.
The court concluded, based on this analysis, that a goldsmith is an artisan and that the tools the
respondent uses in his trade are tools of an artisan within the meaning of Section 60(1)(b).
Thusly, the court maintains the Locale Judge's structure saving the connection for those things.
Section 63 Rajendra Prasad Bora & Anr vs Lohit Prakash Dutta
As the plaintiff, the respondent no. 1 filed Money Suit no. 23/1992 against M/S Rajashree
Distribution Pvt. Ltd., the respondent No. 5, and the Vernacular Daily "Ajir Batori"'s Editor,
Printer, and Publisher. The suit was petitioned for harms and remuneration because of the
distribution of a slanderous news thing concerning the offended party in the paper.
The candidate Nos. 1 and 2 were impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the Money Suit as
M/S Rajashree Publication Pvt.'s owners and directors. Ltd. On December 30, 2000, the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Sibsagar, approved the Money Suit ex parte. A decree for the recovery
of Rs. was issued by the court. 10,00,000/- jointly and severally from the defendants, in addition
to interest accruing at an annual rate of 18% from the filing of the lawsuit until it is won. By
filing Money Execution Case No.3/2001 with the appropriate court in Sibsagar, the decree from
December 30, 2000 was carried out. In the execution case, the decretal amount was Rs.
25,76,225.00, which incorporated the chief measure of Rs. 1,000,000.00, plus the interest
component, as stipulated.
The execution of the declaration included selling the landed property, plants and hardware,
saves, and different articles of the Parijat Film Corridor claimed by the candidates. The particular
land being referred to was 3 Bigha 3 Kathas covered by Dag No.172, P.P. No.11 of Nitaipukhuri,
Mouza Rasaigaon, Demow, Sibsagar. The decree holder/respondent No. 1 requested an order
from the Executing Court to prevent the judgment debtors/petitioners from transferring or
charging the aforementioned property in any way on March 14, 2001, in accordance with Order
XXI Rule 54 CPC. This prayer was allowed by the Executing Court. As the warrant of
connection gave by the Executing Court had returned unexecuted, the declaration
holder/respondent No.1 recorded an application under the steady gaze of the Executing Court,
mentioning the distribution of a notification in the neighborhood paper under Request XXI Rule
54 CPC. On June 2, 2001, this application was approved. Consequently, on 20.06.2001, the
declaration holder/respondent No.1 documented one more application under Request XXI Rule
66(3) CPC, looking for the issuance of a decree for the offer of the connected property by open
closeout. This prayer was also allowed by the Executing Court.
The court establishes that there was no substantial connection of the unflinching properties
situated at Sibsagar under the request passed by the Locale Judge, Kamrup. The court declares
that the execution proceeding, does not prevent the court from proceeding with the
aforementioned property. It recommends that whether or not the Executing Court could continue
with the enduring property regardless of the request dated 16.09.1996 needn't bother with to be
chosen for this situation and can be left open for assurance in a fitting case.
The court holds that the Correction Appeal needs merit and excuses it. The court, however,
decides not to make a cost order based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Section 75 M. Selvaraj vs Income-Tax Officer

The common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-III), Madras, dated February
28, 1996, serves as the basis for these appeals concerning assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-
92. The assessee reported a construction cost of Rs. Rs. and 1.75 lakhs 1.52 million for each of
the assessment years. However, the Evaluating Official alluded the make a difference to the
Valuation Cell of the Personal Duty Division to decide the expense of development. The
Surveying Official embraced the expense not set in stone by the Valuation Cell, i.e. Rs. 5,91,660,
and the difference in rupees was distributed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took
into account the assessee's arguments and the Departmental Valuation Officer's estimate of the
cost of construction. The Chief of Annual expense (Requests) found it unreasonable to
acknowledge either the expense of development proclaimed by the assessee or still up in the air
by the enrolled valuer. The Commissioner determined that the property's basic cost was Rs.
4,58,217 and made an impromptu expansion of.
Court concludes, based on the preceding analysis, that the commission the Assessing Officer
issued without recording satisfaction regarding the assessee's incorrect cost of construction is
invalid. They also come to the conclusion that the Valuation Officer's valuation report is not
reliable and that no addition should be made based on the Departmental Valuation Officer's
report in accordance with Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. As a result, they grant the assessee's
appeals and respond to the question in its favor and against the Revenue.
They conclude by stating that the matter will be remanded to the regular Bench for additional
consideration and appropriate orders.

Section 79 Natwarlal Gowardhandas vs Union Of India (Uoi)

Manilal (P. W. 4) booked 52 bags of tobacco for transportation to Damoh on the Great Indian
Peninsula Railway on July 11, 1947, at Bhaili station on the Gaekwar Baroda State Railway.
After dumping at Damoh on August 16, 1947, 39 sacks were totally harmed due to downpour.
The plaintiff claimed proportionate duty and harms at a pace of 20% of the value, but the court
decided that the profit rate should be 10%. The offended party's case depended on charges of
wrongdoing by rail line workers of either the Bombay, Baroda and Focal India Rail line or the
Incomparable Indian Promontory Rail line. The Association of India shielded the suit and
contended that the risk of the Association can't stretch out to the activities of the Bombay,
Baroda and Focal India Rail route. The plaintiff is responsible for establishing that the servants
of the railway administration engaged in misconduct. The railway administrations would be
liable as bailees even in the absence of the Risk Notes. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs
after the appeal was finally denied by the court.

Section 80 State Of A.P. & Ors vs M/S. Pioneer Builders, A.P

The contractor sought various reliefs when he brought a lawsuit against the defendants, which
included the State government. On the merits, the defendants opposed the suit, but they did not
challenge its maintainability. Under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), the
contractor's requests for dispensation with notice and amendment of the plaint were granted by
the trial court. The orders passed in these applications were not tested by the litigants. The suit
moved on to the framing of issues and the subsequent trial after additional written statements
were submitted. The preliminary court proclaimed a portion of the project worker's cases and
dismissed others. The two players then, at that point, spoke to the High Court, which excused
every one of the requests.
Due to an alleged violation of Section 80 C.P.C., the suit's maintainability was one of the legal
issues brought before the court. Unless urgent relief is sought, Section 80 C.P.C. requires that a
notice be served on the government or public officer before filing a suit against them. Unless the
suit falls under one of the exceptions listed in sub-section (2), the court ruled that Section 80
C.P.C. must be followed. The court noted that the provision aims to provide sufficient notice to
the government and an opportunity for it to reconsider the claim prior to litigation. Nonetheless,
the court saw that as a rule, the public authority doesn't answer the notification. For this situation,
the court observed that the suit was at first documented as a request under Segments 8 and 20 of
the Mediation Act yet was, as a matter of fact, a common suit. The court likewise noticed that the
litigants mentioned no criticism regarding the suit's practicality in view of resistance with
Segment 80 C.P.C. Besides, the respondents took part in the procedures without testing the
orders permitting the corrections and forgoing notice. The court held that by not protesting and
taking part in the procedures, the respondents had deferred any issue with the suit's practicality.
In a nutshell, the court determined that, although Section 80 C.P.C. compliance is required, the
defendants had waived their right to raise the issue of non-compliance by participating in the
proceedings without challenging the orders. As a result, the court concluded that the suit could
be maintained.
Section 89 M/[Link] Infrastructure ... vs M/[Link] Varkey Construction
The petitioner documented a claim to recuperate cash owed to them. The respondents in the suit
are the solicitors (1 and 2). The Goshree Bridges that would link Cochin City to the Vypeen
Islands were the subject of an agreement between petitioners 1 and 2 and defendants 3 and 4. In
addition, petitioners 1 and 2 had a contract with the plaintiff that stipulated that the plaintiff
would serve as their subcontractors for a portion of the project. The work was finished, and
defendants 3 and 4 paid some money to petitioners (1 and 2). The plaintiff was compensated in
part for the work that was done by defendants 1 and 2. Concerning the remaining amounts owed
to the plaintiff by defendants 1 and 2, there was a disagreement. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit
before the remaining amounts were paid by defendants 3 and 4 to defendants 1 and 2. The
petitioner mentioned that respondents 1 and 2 be coordinated to pay the exceptional sums.
Petitioner additionally mentioned a connection before judgment under Request 38 Rule 5, and an
in-between time ex parte request of connection was conceded. The requests of defendants 1 and
2 to vacate the interim order of attachment were denied when they appeared in court. It would
appear that the plaintiff is requesting payment from the first and second defendants for the work
they did as subcontractors.
The court emphasized that courts should not routinely refer to any alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) mechanism in accordance with Section 89(1). Avoid using Section 89(1) rashly because
it can cause additional delays in the proceedings. Courts ought to painstakingly think about all
important elements prior to settling on a choice. Beyond the preferences of the litigants, the court
has the authority to make decisions. Arbitration, on the other hand, should only be mentioned in
exceptional circumstances and infrequently. Due to special reasons that justify invoking the
powers, the court in this case approves the lower court's decision to make the reference for ADR.
The court alerts against thoughtlessly alluding to any of the four techniques for elective debate
goal under Segment 89, particularly discretion. A party cannot return to regular court
proceedings after entering arbitration. The court acknowledged the rarity of such comprehensive
assistance in today's society and expresses gratitude to the counsel representing the parties for
their competent assistance. The modification request is excused, and no expenses are granted.

Section 96 Gurram Seetharam Reddy vs Gunty Yashoda

A suit for the recuperation of a specific sum against the second respondent in the Court of Junior
Common Adjudicator. The first respondent filed an objection to the property's attachment. The
Executing Court granted the claim of the first respondent and authorized the property's
attachment. The petitioner appealed the decision before the Court of Senior Civil Judge
Miryalaguda, but the lower Appellate Court ruled that the appeal could not be sustained. The
Civil Revision Petition was referred to a Division Bench to address the issue.
Although the appeal fee required by Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) may appear
insignificant, it demonstrates Parliament's and the Law Commission's intention to provide
citizens with cost-effective legal options, particularly in terms of court fees. Through
notifications issued under the Court Fees Act, the State Governments have reduced the court fee
for appeals against orders under Section 47. Similar notifications are recommended for appeals
against orders under Order XXI, Rule 58, and others. It is held that requests against orders under
Rule 58(3), Rule 98, and Rule 100 of Request XXI ought to be normal requests under Segment
96 of the CPC, not random requests under Area 104 read with Request XLIII, Rule 1.
According to Clause 11(i) of Schedule II of the Court Fee Act or Article 3(i) of Schedule II, as
applicable, and Section 49 of the AP Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the court fee for these
appeals must be calculated. An appeal made in response to an order made in accordance with
Rule 58(3), Rule 98, or Rule 100 of Order XXI is subject to a second appeal under Section 100
of the CPC.
The Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is denied and the revision order is upheld. Taking advantage
of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner has the right to appeal the Executing Court's
decision under Section 96 of the CPC. The court communicates appreciation for the significant
help given by the learned Senior Direction who filled in as amicus curiae and recognizes their
careful entries and the voluminous record they made accessible, which enormously added to
noting the reference.

Section 97 Smt. Prema vs Nanje Gowda And Ors.

A Civil Revision Petition, submitted by the defendant No. 6 in a partition litigation. The
respondent is abused by a request passed by the preliminary court and is looking to save it. The
record gives an outline of current realities and procedures of the case, including references to
different lawful arrangements and court choices.
The trial court had initially issued a preliminary decree establishing the parties' rights in the
partition suit. The defendants filed an appeal against the preliminary decree, but it was denied.
They then recorded a subsequent allure, however it was dismissed because of postponement in
documenting. The preliminary decree was therefore made final. The plaintiff then began the
process of drafting the final decree. At this point, the defendant named 6 submitted an
application to the trial court, requesting that the preliminary decree be modified and that she be
granted a larger share of the joint family properties. The plaintiff objected to the application,
claiming that it could not be maintained and that defendant No. Six was prevented from claiming
a larger share.
The trial court took into account the arguments presented by both parties and referred to
pertinent legal provisions before rejecting defendant No. Application 6 The defendant number in
the Civil Revision Petition is 6 difficulties the accuracy of the preliminary court's structure,
refering to the arrangements of the Hindu Progression (Karnataka Change) Act and different
court choices. The plaintiff, the first respondent, defended the trial court's decision by arguing
that the preliminary decree is final unless it is appealed. They back up their position with
provisions of the law and decisions made by courts.
The court analyzed the contentions introduced by the two players and necessities to decide if the
reproved request requires mediation through its revisional purview.
Section 100 Gurdev Kaur & Ors vs Kaki & Ors
The plaintiffs, Kaki and Har Kaur, are the deceased Chanan Singh's daughters from Sham Kaur,
his first wife. Chanan Singh likewise had a subsequent spouse named Bhagwan Kaur, who had
three little girls of her own: Mukhtiar Kaur, Dalip Kaur, and Gurdev Kaur No sons were born to
Chanan Singh from either of his wives. The plaintiffs have requested joint possession of Chanan
Singh's property in a civil suit filed with the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Barnala. They assert
that Chanan Singh did not execute a valid will due to his mental inability to safeguard his own
well-being and his inability to execute any will. On June 6, 1969, Chanan Singh passed away in
Barnala. Based on an alleged will dated 18.1.1969, the defendant, Bhagwan Kaur, obtained
Chanan Singh's mutation of inheritance from the relevant authority. However, the plaintiff’s
claim that Bhagwan Kaur conspired with the revenue authorities to carry out the mutation
without their knowledge or consent, and that they were never informed about the approval of the
mutation.

The High Court went against the established rule of interpreting the will. According to the court's
observations, a prudent man would typically leave the property to his legal heirs and would never
disinherit his daughters. Notwithstanding, it is critical to take note of that the court's job is
restricted to deciding the realness of the will and whether it mirrors the deceased benefactor's
free and sound arranging mind. The court shouldn't sit in judgment of the deceased benefactor's
choice or substitute its own perspective for the departed benefactor's aim. Instead of looking at
the rules for intestate succession, the contents of the will should be understood in relation to the
circumstances of the testator. For the purpose of determining the validity of the will, the court
should only investigate the nature of the bequest. A will is written to express the testator's wishes
and can benefit some people while leaving others out of the estate.
Bhagwan Kaur, the testator's wife, was the only person who had lived with the deceased and
cared for him throughout his life in this particular case. The testator had spent a lot of money on
the weddings of the other daughters, which was more than what they would have received as
shares of the testator's property. The other daughters were already happily married. There is a
presumption of proper execution and attestation when a will appears to have been duly executed
and attested in accordance with legal requirements. It is important to note that there was no
substantial question of law formulated in the memorandum of second appeal submitted to the
High Court, and the High Court did not formulate a question of law prior to hearing the appeal in
its judgment.
In many instances, the High Courts have not correctly understood and applied the scope of
Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), despite clear declarations of law made by the
Supreme Court and the Privy Council over the years. Even after the 1976 amendment of Section
100 C.P.C., the High Court still interfered with straightforward factual findings in this case. Even
before the amendment of Section 100 C.P.C., the High Court's judgment clearly contravenes the
provisions of Section 100 and goes against the legislative intention. The High Court should not
have justified interfering with the concurrent findings of fact.
The High Court should not have interfered with the lower courts' straightforward findings of fact
because of the legislative mandate established by various judgments from 1890 to 2006. As a
result, the appeal is granted with costs by the Supreme Court, which overturns the challenged
judgment.

Section 101 Sankaralinga Mudali vs Rathnasabapathi Mudali And Anr

The Advocate-General made a preliminary objection stating that the appellant is not entitled to
make an application under Section 108 raising the same issue that had already been decided
against them under Section 101 because an order was already passed against the second
defendant (appellant) under Section 101 of the Civil Procedure Code and no appeal was filed
against the ex parte decree to challenge that order. The Advocate-General contends that the
appellant should not be permitted to appeal the Section 108 order.
Notwithstanding, the court finds that the phrasing of Area 108, which states "regardless," is very
wide. As a result, the court cannot rule that the defendant is unable to submit a Section 108
application. Consequently, the defendant has the right to file the current appeal under Section
588. The Advocate-General's argument that the proceedings would be pointless even if an appeal
were granted and the ex parte decree was overturned is also rejected by the court. This is because
the order issued under Section 101 cannot be challenged in the current appeal. The court is of the
opinion that the reversal of any previous order under Section 101 that denied the party the right
to appear and defend the lawsuit is necessary if an ex parte decree is set aside under Section 108.
Any other position would result in an absurd outcome.
In terms of the case's merits, the question of whether the serving officer "cannot find" the
defendant in accordance with Section 80 must be determined according to each case's particular
circumstances. It may be appropriate for the serving officer to wait and, if possible, attempt
personal service if the information provided to the officer indicates that the defendant will only
be absent for a short time. However, the serving officer may affix the summons to the
defendant's regular residence's exterior door if the defendant is unable to be reached for service.
In this instance, the serving officer's report states that, based on the information he was given, it
was unlikely that he could personally serve the appellant in a timely manner. Therefore, the
District Judge was justified in accepting the summons as sufficient service, and the serving
officer was justified in affixing it to the door of the house.

Section 104 M. Srinivas vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological

Writ petitioner claimed selection as a member of the Konda Kapu Scheduled Tribe after passing
the common entrance exam in 1988 for admission to the B.E. (Bachelor of Engineering)
program. The Director of Social Welfare must verify his social status as a member of the
Scheduled Tribe before granting him a seat in B.E. (Electronics) as a provisional selection. After
that, there was some legal action, but it was decided that the Director sent the petitioner a show-
cause notice. The petitioner provided his explanation and documentary evidence to back it up.
On 11-11-1988, the Chief gave a request expressing that the applicant doesn't have a place with
the Booked Clan.
Indeed, even before the Chief's organization was given, the solicitor documented a writ request
looking for admission to the B.E. course. Afterward, the alleviation looked for in the writ request
was corrected to incorporate the suppress of the Chief's organization dated 11-11-1988. The writ
appeal was excused on 3-8-1989 in view of its benefits. After that, the petitioner submitted a
review petition, which was also upheld by orders dated September 17, 1989. It is against this
excusal request that the current writ bid is recorded under Condition 15 of the Letters Patent,
despite the fact that the first respondent mentioned a criticism regarding its viability by
summoning Request 47, Rule 7 of the Common Method Code (CPC). The current reference was
made considering this complaint.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that Clause 15 of the Letters Patent grants independent
jurisdiction, granting the right to appeal judgments handed down by learned Single Judges of the
High Court, regardless of whether they were handed down in the original or first appellate
jurisdiction. However, it cannot be held that Order 47, Rule 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Code
(CPC) also prohibits Letters Patent Appeals against orders of learned Single Judges refusing to
review an earlier order. The urgent test is whether the'request' qualifies as a 'judgment' as
perceived in Provision 15 of the Letters Patent. The High Court disagrees from the Full Seat
choice of the Kerala High Court in Mr. Abraham Mathews v. lllani Pillai, which stated that
granting a second appeal would prolong the process of reaching a final decision.

Section 113 Court On Its Own Motion In Re Reference Made By The District Judge,
Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The Arbitration Tribunal in Chennai issued an arbitration verdict. Section 36 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act of 1996 was used to sign the award. Nonetheless, the Area Judge in Raigarh
held that the honor ought to draw in promotion valorem court charges. The District Judge stated
that because the award only had a stamp of Rs. 150/- and was being executed in the state of
Chhattisgarh, court fees of Rs. Under Section 19(a) of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899, a tax of
10,550 rupees would be imposed. The High Court heard a case challenging the District Judge's
order, which it overturned and instructed the executive court to carry out in accordance with the
law. The District Judge then referred the matter to the High Court for six reasons:
The State, addressed by the Extra Backer General and the Appointee Government Promoter,
contended that the reference was not viable. Under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, they argued that the issues raised in the reference were not valid grounds for
making a reference. Additionally, they argued that the Presiding Officer cannot participate in the
proceedings. The Court stated that the reference could not be maintained due to the District
Judge's previous opinion, which the High Court later overturned. The Court likewise noticed that
the reference didn't include an inquiry regarding the legitimacy of any Demonstration, Mandate,
or Guideline, as expected under the stipulation to Section 113. The reference also fell short of
Section 60 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899, according to the Court.
In conclusion, the Court ruled that the District Judge's reference could not be sustained and
rejected the State's arguments.

Section 114 Smt. Rajeshwari & Ors. vs Smt. Meharunnishan & Ors.
The instant review-petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.02.2021
passed in Second Appeal No. 375 of 2001. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the
review-petitioner on admission of the aforesaid review-petition. The appellants are the legal heirs
of the original defendant, Sri Darshan, who was the bonafide purchaser for valuable
consideration of the property. Sri U.S. Sahai has submitted that after the sale deed was executed
in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the review-petitioners, there was no cause of action to
press the suit for specific performance of contract without assailing the sale deed in question.
The following conclusions have been reached by the court after taking into account the record's
pleadings, issues, and evidence, the issue of readiness and willingness, as well as the issue of
whether the review petitioner is a legitimate buyer for valuable consideration, have been noted.
The argument that the cause of action will run out when the sale deed is signed is deemed
frivolous. Furthermore, this request was not raised by the survey solicitor in their past pleadings
under the watchful eye of the lower courts. The counsel for the review petitioner cites no
decisions that pertain to the scope of the review. After taking into account important legal
questions, the arguments made, and the information that was in the record, the court issued the
judgment that is currently under review. The court did not find any obvious error in the record.
Beyond the scope of the review, the petitioner for the review is attempting to request a rehearing
of the appeal. After considering the situation, the court comes to the conclusion that no grounds
for review have been established. The court found no obvious error on the face of the record, and
the submissions made by the review petitioner's counsel do not fall within the parameters of
Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. The review petition is denied with costs because it
lacks merit.

Section 115 - Managing Director (Mig) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway
In the case of Managing Director (Mig) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, the
plaintiff, Tarway, had applied for the position of Assistant Works Manager at Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), but his application was rejected due to a lack of requisite experience.
Tarway filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful rejection of his application.
The court ruled in favor of HAL and the Managing Director (Mig), stating that the rejection of
Tarway's application was not arbitrary or discriminatory. The court acknowledged that the job of
Assistant Works Manager required specific technical knowledge and managerial skills, which
Tarway did not possess. It emphasized that qualifications and experience for a position are
subjective assessments made by the employer, and the court should not interfere unless there is
evidence of mala fide or bias. The court also clarified that since there was no contractual
relationship between the parties for the post of Assistant Works Manager, Tarway's claims for
compensation and damages were not valid. It highlighted that employees do not have an
automatic right to promotion unless there is a contractual or statutory provision supporting it.
In summary, the court dismissed Tarway's lawsuit, upholding HAL's decision to reject his
application. The judgment established that an employer's assessment of qualifications and
experience for a particular job is subjective, and the court should only intervene if there is
evidence of mala fide or bias.

CHART OF SECTIONS

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908

Preliminary
Sections Title Content
1 Short Title, Commencement Sets the foundation for the
and extent application of the code
throughout India, excluding
Jammu and Kashmir, and
establishes the effective date of
its implementation.
2 Definitions Each definition mentioned in
this section contributes to the
overall framework of the code.
3 Subordination of courts It highlights the courts'
authority to adopt a broad and
flexible approach to meet the
ends of justice
4 Savings Provides consistency and
uniformity in civil proceedings
while recognizing the relevance
of specific provisions in other
laws.
5 Application of the code to Acknowledges that the court
revenue courts possesses inherent powers that
are not explicitly provided for in
the Civil Procedure Code
6 Pecuniary Jurisdiction Determines the jurisdiction of
courts to hear and decide civil
suits.
7 Provincial Small Cause Courts Establishes the territorial
jurisdiction of courts in civil
cases
8 Presidency Small Cause Courts Emphasizes that if the code
explicitly excludes the
jurisdiction of civil courts in any
matter, the civil courts are
barred from entertaining or
trying such matters
Suits in General
Jurisdiction of the courts and Res Judicata
9 Courts to try all civil suits unless Fundamental provision that
barred establishes the jurisdiction of
civil courts in India
10 Stay of Suit Matter already decided by a
competent court cannot be re-
agitated between the same
parties.

11 Res judicata Specifies the conditions under

which a matter will be
considered res judicata and the
scope of its application.

12 Bar to further suit A foreign judgment, which has

been passed by a court of
competent jurisdiction outside
India, may be enforced in India
13 When foreign judgment not Foreign judgment will not be
conclusive recognized or enforced in India,
such as if it was obtained
through fraud or if it is contrary
to public policy.
14 Presumption as to foreign Once a court has exercised its
judgements jurisdiction to pronounce a
 judgment or order, it is deemed
to have exclusive jurisdiction
over subsequent proceedings in
relation to that matter.
Place of Suing
15 Court in which suits to be Court shall have jurisdiction to
instituted try a suit if the subject matter of
the suit is situated within its
territorial jurisdiction.
16 Suits to be instituted where Jurisdiction of courts in cases
subject-matter situate involving immovable property
and provides guidelines for
determining the appropriate
court for such suits.
17 Suits for immovable property Jurisdiction of the court in cases
situate within jurisdiction of where the cause of action arises
different courts at multiple places, allowing the
plaintiff to choose any one of
those places for initiating the
suit.

18 Place of institution of suit where Transfer of cases from one

local limits of jurisdiction of court to another court, usually
courts are uncertain when the former lacks
jurisdiction and the latter has
the requisite jurisdiction.
19 Suits for compensation for jurisdiction of courts in cases
wrongs to person or movables where the defendant resides or
carries on business.
20 Other suits to be instituted jurisdiction of courts in cases
where defendants reside or where the subject matter of the
cause of actin arises suit is movable property,
21 Objections to jurisdiction jurisdiction of the court based
on the local limits within which
it exercises its authority.
21A Bar on suit to set aside decree No suit can challenge the
on objection as to place of suing validity of a decree passed in a
previous suit.
22 Power to transfer suits which The defendant can apply to
may be instituted in more than have a suit transferred to
one court another Court after considering
the objections of the other
parties, determining which of
the several Courts has
jurisdiction.
23 To what court application lies The application should be made
to the Appellate Court, the High
 Court, or the High Court within
the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the suit is brought.
24 General power to transfer and The High Court or District Court
withdrawal has the power to transfer or
withdraw any suit, appeal or
other proceeding pending
before it for trial or disposal, or
to try or dispose of it.
25 Power of Supreme Court to The Supreme Court has the
transfer suits, etc power to transfer suits, appeals,
and other proceedings from one
State to another if it is
expedient for justice.
Institution of Suits
26 Institution of Suits Suits must be instituted by
presenting a plaint.
Summons and Discovery
27 Summons to defendants Summons can be issued to
defendants to answer suit.
28 Service of summons where A summons may be sent for
defendant resides in another state service in another State in the
manner prescribed by the rules
in force in that State. A
translation of the record, if
different from the language of
the summons, must be sent
together with the record.
29 Service of foreign summonses in the territories to which this
Code extends and served as if
they were issued by such
Courts.
30 Power to order discovery and the like The Court has the power to
make orders, issue summonses,
and order facts to be proved by
affidavit.
31 Summons to witness Summonses to give evidence or
produce documents.
32 Penalty for default The Court may issue a warrant,
attach and sell property, impose a
fine, or commit a person to civil
prison for default.
Judgement And Decree
33 Judgement and decree Judgment and decree are issued by
the Court after hearing a case
Interest
34 Interest The Court may order interest to be
paid on the principal sum adjudged
 from the date of the suit to the
date of the decree, not exceeding
six per cent per annum.
Costs
35 Costs The Court has the power to
determine the costs of and incident
to all suits, and to give directions
for the purposes aforesaid. Where
the Court directs that any costs
shall not follow the event, it must
state its reasons in writing.
35A Compensatory costs in respect of The Court may order compensation
false or vexatious claims or defences for false or vexatious claims or
defenses if the objector objects to
the claim or defence and it is
disallowed, abandoned or
withdrawn in whole or in part.
35B Costs for causing delay The Court may order a party to pay
costs to reimburse the other party
for expenses incurred in attending
the Court on a date, and payment
of such costs is a condition
precedent to further prosecution.
Part II
Execution
General
36 Application to orders Applies to execution of orders,
including payment.
37 Definition of Court which passed a The term "Court which passed a
decree decree" refers to the Court of first
instance, if the decree was passed
in appellate jurisdiction, and if the
Court of first instance has ceased
to exist or have jurisdiction to
execute it.
Courts by which decrees may be executed
38 Court by which decree may be Delegated decrees can be executed
executed by either court.
39 Transfer of decree The Court can transfer a decree to
another Court if the person against
whom the decree is passed resides
or works in the jurisdiction of the
other Court.
40 Transfer of decree to court in Delegated decrees must be
another state executed in accordance with local
rules.
41 Result of execution proceedings to The Court to which a decree is sent
be certified for execution must certify its
execution.
42 Powers of court in executing The Court has the same powers as
 transferred decree. if it had passed the decree,
punishing those who disobey or
obstruct it.
43 Execution of decrees passed by civil Deeds passed by Civil Courts
courts in places to which this code outside India may be executed in
does not extend the jurisdiction of any Court in the
territories to which this Code
extends.
44 Execution of decrees passed by Deeds passed by Civil Courts
Revenue Courts in places to which outside India may be executed in
this code does not extend the jurisdiction of any Court in the
territories to which this Code
extends.
44A Execution of decrees passed by the Execution of decrees passed by
courts in reciprocating territory Courts in reciprocating territories
can be done in India.
45 Execution of decrees outside India A Court in any State can send a
decree for execution to any Court
established by the Central
Government outside India.
46 Precepts Court can issue precepts to attach
property belonging to judgment-
debtor.
Questions to be determined by court executing decree
47 Questions to be determined by court The Court executing a decree must
executing decree determine questions related to its
execution, discharge or
satisfaction.
Limit of Time For Execution
48 Repealed
Transferees and Legal representatives
49 Transferee The Court must determine
questions related to a decree's
execution, discharge or
satisfaction.
50 Legal Representative The holder of a decree may apply
to the Court to execute it against
the legal representative of the
deceased, and the Court may
compel the legal representative to
produce accounts.
Procedure In Execution
51 Powers of Court to enforce execution The Court can order execution of a
decree by delivery, attachment,
arrest and detention, appointing a
receiver, or other means.
52 Enforcement of decree against legal The decree can be enforced by
representative attaching and selling any property
of the deceased, or against the
judgment-debtor to the extent of
the property in respect of which he
 has failed to satisfy the Court.
53 Liability of ancestral property Property in the hands of a son or
other descendant is liable for the
payment of a deceased ancestor's
debt.
54 Partition of estate or separation of The Collector or any gazetted
share subordinate of the Collector must
make the partition or separation of
an undivided estate in accordance
with the law.
Arrest and Detention
55 Arrest and detention A judgment-debtor can be arrested
and detained in any place the State
Government deems suitable, as
soon as practicable.
56 Prohibition of arrest or detention of Women cannot be arrested or
women in execution of decree for detained for money in execution of
money a decree.
57 Subsistence- allowance State Government can set monthly
allowances for judgment-debtors
based on rank, race, and
nationality.
58 Detention and release Detention and release of persons
detained in execution of a decree
for a period not exceeding three
months or five hundred rupees.
59 Release on ground of illness The Court may cancel a warrant for
the arrest of a judgment-debtor on
grounds of his serious illness, or
release him from the civil prison if
he is not in a fit state of health.
Attachment
60 Property liable to attachment and lands, houses, goods, money,
sale in execution of decree banknotes, cheques, bills of
exchange, hundis, promissory
notes, Government securities,
bonds, debts, shares in
corporation, and all other saleable
property belonging to the
judgment-debtor.
61 Partial exemption of agricultural The State Government may declare
produce that certain portions of agricultural
produce are exempt from liability
to attachment or sale in exaction of
a decree.
62 Seizure of property in dwelling house No person executing a process
under this Code can enter a
dwelling-house after sunset and
before sunrise, but can break open
the door of any room in which it is
believed to contain property.
63 Property attached in execution of The Court of highest grade or the
 decrees of several courts Court under whose decree the
property was first attached shall
receive or realize the property.
64 Private alienation of property after Private alienation of property after
attachment to be void attachment voids all claims
enforceable under the attachment.
Sale
65 Purchaser’s Title Property vested in purchaser from
time of sale, not absolute sale.
66 Repealed
67 Power for State Government to make The State Government can make
rules as to sales of land in execution rules for local areas to impost
of decrees for payment conditions on the sale of uncertain
or undermined interests in land.
Delegation To Collector of Power to Execute
Decrees against Immovable Property
68 Repealed

69 Repealed

70 Repealed

71 Repealed

72 Repealed

Distribution of Assets
73 Proceeds of execution-sale to be Proceeds of execution-sale to be
rateably distributed among decree- distributed among decree-holders
holders after deducting costs of realization.
Resistance to Execution
74 Resistance to execution The Court may order the judgment-
debtor or other person to be
detained and the decree-holder or
purchaser put into possession of
the property if resistance to
execution is without just cause.
Part III
Incidental Proceedings
Commissions
75 Power of Court to issue commissions The court has the power to issue
commissions to examine people,
make local investigations, adjust
 accounts, hold investigations, and
sell property.
76 Commission to another Court A commission for the examination
of a person can be issued to any
Court with jurisdiction in the place
where the person to be examined
resides, and the commission must
be returned to the Court from
which it was issued.
77 Letter of request Court may issue letter of request to
examine witness outside India.

78 Commissions issued by foreign courts Foreign Courts may issue

commissions for the examination
of witnesses, subject to conditions
and limitations.
Part IV
Suits In Particular Cases
Suits by or against the government
or public officers in their official capacity
79 Suits by or against Government The authority to be named as
plaintiff or defendant in a suit by or
against the Government is the
State.
80 Notice No suits can be instituted against
the Government or a public officer
until two months after notice in
writing is delivered.
81 Exemption from arrest and personal The Court can exempt a public
appearance officer from arrest and personal
appearance if he cannot absent
himself without detriment to the
public service.
82 Execution of decree The provisions of sub-sections (1)
and (2) apply to any decree passed
against the Union of India or a
State or a public officer, and to any
order or award passed or made
against the Union of India or a
State or a public officer.
Suits by Aliens and by or Against
Foreign Rulers, Ambassadors and Envoys
83 When aliens may sue Alien enemies residing in India with
Central Government permission
can sue in any court.
84 When foreign states may sue Foreign States may sue to enforce
private rights vested in them.

85 Persons Specially appointed by The Central Government may

 government to prosecute or defend appoint persons to prosecute or
on behalf of foreign rulers. defend suits on behalf of foreign
Rulers, who are recognized agents.
86 Suits against foreign Rulers, Foreign Rulers, Ambassadors and
Ambassadors and Envoys. Envoys can be sued without Central
Government consent.
87 Style of foreign Rulers as parties to Foreign Rulers may sue and be
suits sued in the name of their State.

87A Definition of “Foreign State” and Foreign States and Rulers are
“Ruler” defined by the Central
Government, and Courts must take
judicial notice of the fact that a
state has or has not been
recognized.
Suits Against Rulers of Former Indian States
87B Application of sections 85 and 86 to Section 85 and sub-sections (1) and
rulers of former Indian States (3) of section 86 apply to Rulers of
former Indian States in suits based
on causes of action before the
Constitution.
Interpleader
88 Where interpleader-suit may be Interpleader suit can be
instituted reinstituted when two or more
persons claim the same debts, sum
of money, or other property from
one another.
Part V
Special Proceedings
Arbitration
89 Settlement of disputes outside the Repealed by Arbitration Act, 1940
Court

Special Case
90 Power to state case for opinion of The Court has the power to
court determine public nuisances and
other wrongful acts.
Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public
91 Public nuisances and other wrongful Public nuisances and other
acts affecting the public wrongful acts affecting the public
can be sued for a declaration and
injunction, even if no special
damage has been caused.
92 Public charities The Advocate-General or two or
more persons having an interest in
a trust can institute a suit to obtain
a decree in the principal Civil Court
of original jurisdiction.
93 Exercise of powers of advocate- The Advocate-General's powers
general outside presidency-towns can be exercised by the Collector or
other officer with State
Government approval.
Part VI
Supplemental Proceedings
94 Supplemental proceedings The Court may issue a warrant,
direct the defendant to furnish
security, or grant a temporary
injunction to commit the person
guilty to the civil prison.
95 Compensation for obtaining arrest, Compensation for obtaining arrest,
attachment or injunction on attachment or injunction on
insufficient ground insufficient grounds.
Part VII
Appeals
Appeals from original decrees
96 Appeal from original decree Appeal from decree passed by
Court authorized to hear appeals
from decisions.
97 Appeal from final decree where no Parties may appeal from final
appeal from preliminary decree decree if no appeal from
preliminary decree is made.
98 Decision where appeal heard by two Appeal heard by two or more
or more judges Judges must be decided by
majority.
99 No decree to be reversed or modified No decree should be reversed or
for error or irregularity not affecting modified for error or irregularity
merits or jurisdiction. not affecting merits or jurisdiction.
99A No order under section 47 to be No order under section 47 can be
reversed or modified unless decision reversed or modified unless it has
of the case is prejudicially affected prejudicially affected the decision
of the case.
Appeals from Appellate Decrees
100 Second Appeal Appeal to the High Court from any
decree passed in appeal if it
involves a substantial question of
law.
100A No further appeal in certain cases No further appeal from an
appellate decree or order heard
and decided by a single Judge of a
High Court is allowed.
101 Second Appeal on no other grounds Second appeal must be on the
ground specified in section 100.
102 No second appeal in certain cases No second appeal in small suits if
value is less than Rs.84000.

103 Power of High Court to determine The High Court has the power to
issues of fact determine any issue necessary for
the disposal of an appeal, if the
evidence is sufficient.
Appeals from orders
104 Orders from which appeal lies Orders from which appeal lies are
listed.

105 Other orders No appeal shall lie from any order

made by a Court, but any error,
defect or irregularity in any order
may be set forth as ground of
objection.
106 What courts to hear appeals Appeal from orders must be taken
to the Court with appellate
jurisdiction, not the High Court.
General Provisions Relating to Appeals

107 Powers of appellate court Appellate Courts have the same

powers and duties as Courts of
original jurisdiction in respect of
suits instituted therein.
108 Procedure in appeals from appellate The provisions of this Part apply to
decrees and orders appeals from appellate decrees and
orders.
Appeals to the Supreme Court
109 When appeals lie to the Supreme Appeal lies to the Supreme Court
Court from any judgment, decree or final
order in a civil proceeding of a High
Court if the High Court certifies
that the case involves a substantial
question of law.
110 Omitted

111 Omitted

111A Omitted

112 Savings The Code does not affect the

Supreme Court's powers or
interfere with its rules for appeals,
criminal or admiralty jurisdiction,
or Prize Court appeals.
Part VIII
 Reference , Review and Revision
113 Reference to High Court The Court may refer a case to the
High Court if it is of opinion that an
Act, Ordinance, Regulation or
provision is invalid or inoperative,
but has not been declared by the
High Court or Supreme Court.
114 Review Persons aggrieved by a decree or
order may apply for a review of
judgment to the Court which
passed the decree or made the
order.
115 Revision The High Court may make an order
in a case if a subordinate Court has
exercised a jurisdiction not vested
in it by law or failed to exercise it.
Part IX
Special Provisions relating to the High Courts not
being the Court of judicial Comissioner
116 Part to apply only to certain High High Courts not being the Court of
courts a Judicial Commissioner are
excluded from this Part.
117 Application of code to high courts Code applies to High Courts except
as provided.

118 Execution of decree before The High Court may order the
ascertainment of costs execution of a decree before the
amount of the costs can be
ascertained by taxation, except for
the costs.
119 Unauthorized persons not to address The Code does not authorize
court unauthorized persons to address
the Court or examine witnesses,
unless authorized by the Court.
120 Provisions not applicable to high High Court not subject to sections
court in original civil jurisdiction 16, 17 and 20 in original civil
jurisdiction.

Part X
Rules
121 Effect of rules in First Schedule Rules in First Schedule have effect
until changed.

122 Power of certain high courts to make High Courts may make rules to
rules regulate their own procedures and
Civil Courts.
123 Constitution of rules committees in Rule Committees in certain States
certain states are composed of three Judges of
the High Court, two legal
practitioners, and a Judge of a Civil
 Court.
124 Committee to report to high court Rule Committees must report to
High Court on proposed changes to
rules before making new rules.
125 Power of other high courts to make High Courts may exercise the
rules powers conferred by section 122 in
accordance with the State
government's discretion.
126 Rules to be subject to approval Rules must be approved by the
Government of the State or Central
Government.
127 Publication of rules Rules must be published in the
Official Gazette and have the same
effect as if contained in the First
Schedule.
128 Matters for which rules may provide Rules may provide for any matters
relating to the procedure of Civil
Courts, such as service of
summons, maintenance and
custody of live-stock, valuation of
suits, garnishee and charging
orders, and defendant claims to be
entitled to contribution or
indemnity.
129 Power of high courts to make rules as High Courts may make rules to
to their original civil procedure regulate their own procedure in
the exercise of their original civil
jurisdiction.
130 Power of other high courts to make High Courts may make rules for
rules as to matters other than matters other than procedure, with
procedure the approval of the State
Government.
131 Publication of rules Rules must be published in Official
Gazette to become law.

Part XI
Miscellaneous
132 Exemption of certain women from Women exempt from personal
personal appearance appearance in Court due to
customs.
133 Exemption of other persons The President of India, Vice-
President of India, Speaker of
House of People, Ministers of
Union, Judges of Supreme Court,
Governors of States, Speakers of
State Legislative Assemblies,
Chairman of State Legislative
Councils, Ministers of States,
Judges of High Courts, and persons
to whom section 87B applies.
134 Arrest other than in execution of Code applies to all arrests other
decree than in execution of decree.

135 Exemption form arrest under civil No Judge, Magistrate or other

process judicial officer is liable to arrest
under civil process while going to,
presiding in, or returning from their
Court. Parties, pleaders, witnesses,
and judgment-debtor are exempt
from arrest when attending or
returning from a tribunal.
135A Exemption of members of legislative Members of legislative bodies are
bodies from arrest and detention exempt from arrest and detention
under civil process. under civil process if they are
members of either House of
Parliament, the Legislative
Assembly or Legislative Council of a
State or Union territory, or a
Legislative Assembly or Legislative
Council of a State having both
Houses.
136 Procedure where person to be The Court may issue a warrant of
arrested or property to be attached is arrest or order of attachment if the
outside district person or property is outside the
local limits of the jurisdiction of the
Court.
137 Language of subordinate courts The State Government can
determine the language of any
subordinate Court and the
character of applications and
proceedings.
138 Power of high court to require The High Court has the power to
evidence to be recorded in English require evidence to be recorded in
English, and if a Judge is prevented
from complying, the evidence must
be recorded in writing.
139 Oath on affidavit by whom to be The oath on an affidavit must be
administered administered by a Court or
Magistrate, notary, or officer
appointed by the State
Government.
140 Assessors in causes of salvage, etc The Court may summon two
competent assessors to assist in
any admiralty or vice-admiralty
cause of salvage, towage or
collision.
141 Miscellaneous proceedings The Code of Civil Procedure applies
to all proceedings in any Court of
civil jurisdiction.
142 Orders and noticed to be in writing Orders and notices must be
written.
143 Postage Postage and fees must be paid
within a specified time, or the State
Government may remit them.
144 Application for restitution The Court may order restitution of
a decree or order if it has been
varied, reversed, set aside or
modified, and may make any
orders necessary to restore the
parties to their original position.
145 Enforcement of liability of surety The Court can enforce the liability
of a surety if the surety has
furnished security or given a
guarantee for the performance of a
decree, restitution of property
taken in execution of a decree, or
payment of money or condition.
146 Proceedings by or against Procedural proceedings or
representatives applications can be taken or made
by or against any person claiming
under them.
147 Consent or agreement by persons Consent or agreement by persons
under disability under disability has the same force
and effect as if they were not
disabled.
148 Enlargement of time Court may enlarge time for
prescribed acts, even if expired.

148A Right to lodge caveat The right to lodge a caveat in a suit

or proceedings can be claimed by
any person claiming a right to
appear before the Court.
149 Power to make up deficiency of court The Court has the power to make
fees up deficiency of court-fees by
allowing the person to pay the
entire or part of the fee, resulting
in the same effect as if the fee had
been paid.
150 Transfer of business Court to which business is
transferred has same powers and
duties as the original Court.
151 Saving of inherent powers of court Court has inherent power to make
orders for justice and prevent
abuse.
152 Amendment of judgements, decrees Court can correct mistakes in
or orders judgments, decrees or orders.

153 General power to amend The Court has the power to amend
any defect or error in a suit to
determine the issue.
153A Power to amend decree or order The Court of first instance has the
where appeal is summarily dismissed power to amend a decree or order
when an appeal is dismissed,
 despite the dismissal of the appeal.
153B Place of trial to be deemd to be open The place of trial must be open to
court the public, but the presiding judge
may order that the public not have
access.
154 Repealed

155 Repealed

156 Repealed

157 Continuance of orders under Notifications, declarations, rules,

repealed enactments places appointed, agreements filed,
scales prescribed, forms framed,
appointments made and powers
conferred under repealed
enactments have the same force
and effect as under this Code.
158 Reference to code of civil procedure Referral to Code of Civil Procedure
and other repealed enactments and other repealed enactments
must be taken to be made to this
Code or its corresponding Part,
Order, section or rule.