CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE &

LIMITATION ACT
8TH SEMESTER
CLASS NOTES
(Google Classroom Code - vp7ingx)

Titash Bhattacharya
1750535
[Link]@[Link]
+91 9663945811
 Unit 1

UNIT 1 -
(Date - 18 Jan)

Stages of Civil Case:

1.​ Jurisdiction of Court
○​ Determine cause of action - substantial aspect
■​ To understand if there exists a legal dispute - or - if legal rights and duties
involved
○​ When and where the cause of action arise - purely procedural
■​ Limitations and jurisdiction
○​ Jurisdiction: pecuniary, subject matter, res subjudice, res judicata, transfer of
cases, etc.
2.​ Figure out parties in dispute
○​ Joinder of parties
○​ Cause of action
○​ Sending of notices
○​ Caveat and limitation
3.​ Filing of Plaint
○​ Application - used for cases that are ‘not full’
○​ ‘Plaint’ - used for civil cases
4.​ Summons
○​ Sent by the court to the defendants
5.​ Written Statement
○​ Plaintiff/Complainant files Plaint
○​ Purely for civil cases
○​ Defendant provides the written statements wrt plaints
[ Issues filed by courts; there might be a preliminary hearing in civil cases, its the advocates who
usually go ]
6.​ Pleading Rules
7.​ Appearance of Parties:
○​ Called by judges
○​ Have to be suggested about ADR (which might succeed or fail)
■​ If ADR fails then the court frames issues
○​ Until issues are framed, case may be withdrawn as well
8.​ First Hearing and Issues Frames
9.​ Proceedings
○​ IA - at any stage - commission + arrest, injunctions
○​ Adjournment
[ Revision and Reference ]
10.​Evidence

1
 Unit 1

○​ Admissions
○​ Documents - discovery, production, impounding
○​ Witness - summons, examination etc
11.​Withdraw, Compromise, Abetment of Suit, Death
○​ Can happen as its based on the private rights of the plaintiff
○​ Can happen in any stage of the case
○​ Civil cases are cases of right in personam
○​ In criminal cases - no withdrawal
■​ In civil cases - withdrawal is based on the choice of parties
12.​Special Suits
○​ Against state and government
○​ Slight change in procedure
13.​Cost and Interest
14.​Judgement Decree and Order
15.​Execution
○​ Implementation of court’s decision
○​ Unlike crime cases, not mere involvement of Police
16.​Appeal and Revision

(Date: 19 Jan 2021)

Substantive law and Procedural law:
●​ Most laws are a combination of both types
○​ “Predominantly substantive and partly procedural” - Category A - Companies Act
○​ “Predominantly procedural and partly substantive” - Category B - Registration
Act
●​ SL - Determines / affects / creates / Strikes down vested rights || PL - Enforce vested
rights
○​ Eg: IT Act - restricts right to property
■​ Taxes to be paid, capital gains, obligation to pay
○​ Eg: ToPA - Creates, Regulates and at times strikes down rights
●​ Majorly Substantive law - when it regulates the rights/restrictions
○​ Creates, takes away, strike down, restrict, enhance
●​ Procedural law -
○​ When the predominant provision exercise a vested right created by another right
○​ But many create vested rights as well - create and restrict
■​ Rt to bail - CrPC
■​ Rt to Fair Trial - CrPC
■​ Rt to Appeal - CPC
■​ Rt to Property - CPC

2
 Unit 1

●​ Equally substantive and procedural laws - IT Act, GST Act,

●​ SL is interpreted strictly and PL are interpreted harmoniously with SL
●​ SL is not retrospective but PL can be retrospectively applicable to pending proceedings
○​ Eg. Del HC - changing territorial jurisdiction and gave power to try the same case
from the start. - Del HC gave it retrospective effect

CPC - Takwani Notes - Substantive and Procedural Law

●​ Substantive law determines rights and liabilities of parties ---- Adjective/Procedural law
prescribes the practice, procedure and machinery for the enforcement of those lights and
liabilities.
●​ Halsbury -
○​ The function of substantive law is to define, create or confer substantive legal
rights or legal status or to impose and define the nature and extent of legal duties.
○​ The function of procedural law is to provide the machinery or the manner in
which the legal rights or status and legal duties may be enforced or recognised by
a court of law or other recognised or properly constituted tribunal.
●​ Efficacy of substantive law is dependent on the quality of procedural law.
○​ Procedural law is an adjunct or an accessory to substantive law
○​ It is procedural law which puts life into substantive law by providing a remedy
and implements ubi jus ibi remedium
●​ CPC is an adjective or procedural law. -- it neither creates nor takes away any right. It is
intended to regulate the procedure to be followed by civil courts

History and Object of CPC:

●​ Extent and Applicability
●​ Sec. 1 - Extent and Applicability
○​ Whole of India except the State of Nagaland and Tribal Areas.
○​ Excluded areas have to be guided by the spirit of the code and would not be
bound by the letter of the CPC
●​ Sec. 3 - Subordination of Courts.
○​ For the purposes of this Code, the District Court is subordinate to the High Court,
and every Civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a District Court and every
Court of Small Causes is subordinate to the High Court and District Court.
○​ Court of Small causes → District Court → HC
●​ Sec. 4 - Savings
○​ Code is not exhaustive and is not limiting in nature
●​ Sec. 5 - Application of the Code to Revenue Courts

3
 Unit 1

○​ Where any Revenue Courts are governed by the provisions of this Code in those
matters of procedure upon which any special enactment applicable to them is
silent, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare
that any portions of those provisions which are not expressly made applicable by
this Code shall not apply to those Courts, or shall only apply to them with such
modifications as the State Government may prescribe.
○​ Revenue court -- a Court having jurisdiction under any local law to entertain
suits or other proceedings relating to the rent, revenue or profits of land used for
agricultural purposes
●​ Sec. 7 - Provincial Small Cause Courts
●​ Sec. 8 - Presidency Small Cause Courts.

(Date: 25 Jan 2021)

Hierarchy of Civil Courts:
●​ Key reasons for importance - for appeal and pecuniary jurisdiction
●​ Kar HC -
○​ SC → HC → District Court → Court of Senior Civil Judge (Sr.) → Court of Civil
Judge (Jr.) → Munsif Court
○​ BLR City Civil Court Act is separate form Kar City Civil
●​ Usually courts of appeal would not be based on pecuniary or other general jurisdiction
○​ Court of appeal is statute related
●​ Eg: Munsif → Sr. Civil (and not Jr. Civil) -- for kar cc
●​ Small Causes Courts
○​ Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act 1964
○​ Depends on the Act -- SC → HC → DC → SCC (Kar) || SC → HC → [Link].C
(Bom)
○​ Not the lowest court
○​ For speedy trial of petty cases
■​ Despite summary cases, SCC was needed to fasten the process (Law
Comm Report)
■​ Procedural compliance shortened
○​ Tries to relate DC with sessions court

Definition Clause:
●​ S. 2(11) - Legal representative:
○​ Person in law representing the estate of deceased in law
■​ Can be PoA, Notary, Legal Heir, Coparcener, Trustee, Agent…)
○​ Need not be a Legal Heir (LH)
○​ Any person who intermeddles with the property of the deceased and intends to
sue or to be sued in representative character.

4
 Unit 1

○​ LR = person who represents the estate of deceased + party suing or being sued in
a representative character + person on whom the estate devolves + intermeddlers
■​ Hence it includes: executors, administrators, revisioners, Hindu
coparceners, residuary legatees etc
■​ Trespasser would not be a LR as he does not intermeddle with the
intention of representing the estate of the deceased;
■​ even executor de son tort, succeeding trustee, official assignee or receiver
is not a LR
○​ Case: Satya Ranjan Roy v . Sarat Chandra Biswas
■​ Facts: Initial suit was bought by the deceased (Lalit Mohan). The
plaintiffs included the wife and the appellants (def2 and def3) as the LRs
of deceased based on the fact that a judge of a subordinate court held that
def2 and def3 “appropriated some bricks of the kiln” under the orders of
the District Board of Nadia. So basically the SJ held the wife and def2
and def3 to be the LRs of deceased
■​ Issue: Def2 and Def3 claim that they are not to be made parties and LR
should be the wife only as she represented the estate of the Deceased.
Hence -- Executor de son tort, whether can be impleaded as party in
presence of legal representative????
■​ Arguments:
●​ Def2 and Def3-- when a person may be intermeddling with the
estate of the decreased, he may become an executor de son tort but
the case did not show def2 and def3 to be executors de son tort.
●​ OG plaintiff (who is the respon.) -- adding of all 3 parties as LR
is justified as per s.2(11) as they appropriated the bricks. But the
counsel here failed to produce any authority to establish that taking
away of bricks could make him an
intermeddler/executor-de-son-tort even when there exists another
LR.
■​ Holding of the Court:
●​ Deceased had left his wife to represent the estate after death in
the case brought against him and his widow would be the proper
representative of the deceased.
●​ The court accepted the view of the SJ where the def2 and def3
were said to be the executor-de-son-tort but there was no ground
on which they could be held as the LRs of the deceased where they
represent his estate by intermeddling with it. (There was a lack of
intention of intermeddling with the property)
■​ Hence def2 and def 3 as executor de son tort were not held to be LRs.
○​ Case: SBI v. Indian Apparels Industries [AIR 1989 Del 297]

5
 Unit 1

■​ Overruled the Satya Ranjan Roy case

●​ A bare reading of the definition of the word "legal representative"
or the provisions of Order 22, rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, do
not place any restriction on the impleading of any legal
representative.
●​ Did not agree to the fact that only the widow would be the proper
representative of the deceased.
●​ Hence the judge before overruling held that - If there are more
than one legal representatives, one in the capacity of legal heir and
other an intermeddler, in my opinion, there is nothing in law to
warrant the proposition that only the former category of legal
representatives should be impleaded and not the latter category.
■​ SBI sued IAI - money suit - defendants were minor daughter as LH along
with 3 others - no executor in law for estate on date of filing suit
■​ Defendant (Deceased) had taken loans -- co-defendants:
●​ Defendant No. 2(a) = the daughter of Deceased (minor being sued
through her grandfather Def.3)
●​ Defendant No. 2(b) = his mother;
●​ Defendant No.3 is his father
●​ Defendant No. 4 is his brother.
○​ Defendants Nos. 2(a) and (b) have been impleaded as
surviving class I legal heirs of the deceased
○​ Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 have been impleaded by the
plaintiff alleging that the said defendants are
intermeddling with the estate and are functioning as de
facto administrators of the estate.
●​ Def 2(b), 3, 4 all sought dismissal of the suit or striking out their
names from the suit.
■​ Defs were sued as LRs of deceased and not in their individual capacity.
■​ did not deal with the aspect of ‘intention’
●​ But -- submission of appellants for impleading D3 and D4 as
intermeddlers it was necessary, in law, for the plaintiff to further
allege that the said defendants had retained the possession of the
properties belonging to the estate of major Chadha with the
intention of representing the estate.
●​ Nagendra Nath Roy v. Haran Chandra 1933 - essential test for
distinguishing LRs and intermeddlers is the intention of possessing
the property and representing the estate.
■​ CH: because LH are added, it doesn't mean that intermeddlers can be
added

6
 Unit 1

●​ If there are more than one legal representatives, one in capacity

as legal heir and other as in intermeddler, in my opinion, there is
nothing in law to warrant the proposition that only the former
category of legal representative should be impleaded and not that
of the later category.
●​ One can choose to make LH or Intermeddler as LR

(Date: 1 Feb 2021)

●​ S. 2(12) - Mesne Profit:
○​ Definition:
■​ means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such
property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have
received therefrom,
■​ together with interest on such profits,
■​ but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person
in wrongful possession;
○​ Profit from property by
■​ Person in wrongful possession of property (trespasser)
■​ Actually received or might have received with ordinary diligence
●​ Eg: if case has been filed for recovery of possession of immovable
property by the alleged actual owner against a person who does not
have a legal title to such property -- trespasser has taken possession
of the property -- owner wants recovery and profits made from the
property (mesne profit) -- if court agrees to the ownership and
recognises the trespasser, the court will consider that irrespective
of the ownership nature, if a reasonable person of ordinary
prudence would have made profit from such property -- claim can
be liquidated or unliquidated damages with an approximate
estimate should be given to the court; court can decide -- if
liquidated damages then the court has to grant the actual amount
asked by the plaintiff -- if court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to
any compensation as there is no violation of any legal right
●​ Mesne profit is an unliquidated damage
■​ With interest
●​ Follows High Court rules for rate of interest based on various
situations -- never higher than the fixed rates of RBI
●​ profit + interest = Mesne Profit
■​ Does not include profit from improvements made by person in wrongful
possession

7
 Unit 1

●​ Eg: factory premises -- trespasser makes a godown that gives

additional income/profit -- 5L + 1L -- mesne profit will be 5L +
interest.
○​ Then what about the godown??? -- the godown is the
“profit”?? -- hence when the court orders for recovery, the
owner would have to pay the trespasser for the costs for the
improvements made
○​ Improvements costs should not include the present market
value -- seen as an punishment for making such
improvements
○​ Mesne profit is a compensation for the wrongful trespass that led to losses faced
due to no control over the property -- its not “profit”
○​ Objective is to compensate and not to make profit from such property
○​ Objective → when one is deprived of their right to property, he is not only entitled
to restoration of possession of his property but also damages for wrongful
possession.
○​ Claimed against → a person in wrongful possession and enjoyment of immovable
property is liable for mesne profits
■​ So can be passed against a trespasser, mortgagor or mortgagee, against a
person against whom a decree for possession is passed
■​ Can be joint and several liability
○​ Assessment of mesne profit → as its damages, no invariable rule governing their
award and assessment can be laid down.
■​ Usually the court will take into account what the defendant has gained or
reasonably might have gained by his wrongful possession of the property.
○​ Interest → integral part of mesne profits, it has to be allowed in the computation
of mesne profits itself.
■​ Rate of interest is at the discretion of the court subjected to the limitation
that the sai said shall not exceed 6% per annum.
○​ Deductions → land revenue, rent, cesses, cost of cultivation and reaping, the
charges incurred for collection of rent.
○​ Mesne profits = net profits
○​ Case: BSNL v. Radhika Chettri 2018
■​ Radhika leased property to BSNL in 1993 and expired in 1998 -- terms
mentioned that after the expiry, lessee to pay extra rent or vacate -- BSNL
stayed and paid same rent -- BSNL gave notice in 2013 -- property was
damaged -- BSNL did not vacate completely even after notice for 7 years
-- court held tenancy at sufferance (tenancy against the wish of the owner)
and BSNL deprived the owner of the property from possession of the
property due to non vacation, thus mesne profits given.

8
 Unit 1

■​ Nature of loss was even due to breach of contract and mesne profit -- court
decided mesne profit as contract had been terminated and party did not
comply with the termination
○​ Q: If Y’s property had only a ground floor & X constructed 1st floor apartment -
gets rent - is it a measne profit??? NO as its an improvement to the property

9
 UNIT 2

UNIT 2 - Jurisdiction

Meaning of Jurisdiction:
●​ Power of court to hear and try a case
●​ Boundaries of a courts power to take cognizance of a legal dispute - within which the
court should operate
●​ Who tells the court that it lacks the jurisdiction -- Statutes and the court themselves based
on what says only (and SC or HC precedents)

Kinds of Jurisdiction:
1.​ Pecuniary - s.6 and 15
○​ S. 6 and 15 are not exhaustive -- there are other laws to explain the same. (eg. kar
civil courts act)
○​ Competent court of lowest grade
○​ Value of subject matter of suit/execution proceedings (value of relief claimed)
○​ Section 6
■​ Prohibitory section
■​ 6. Pecuniary jurisdiction.—Save in so far as is otherwise expressly
provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court
jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which
exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.
○​ Q: How to find the value of a civil case? --
○​ Q: Where and how to find out the pecuniary jurisdiction? --
○​ Section 15
■​ Court in which suits to be instituted.—Every suit shall be instituted in the
Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
■​ Hierarchy and pecuniary jurisdiction
■​ Eg: if case is of 5L and Civil Jud Jr Div has 8L and Sr. div has 10L, then
the case is under Jr. div based on hierarchy.

(Date: 2 Feb 2021)

○​ Suit Valuation Act 1885 r/w Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act
■​ SVA -
●​ S.3 Power for State Government to make rules determining value
of land for jurisdictional purposes.
●​ S.9 Determination of value of certain suits by High Court.
■​ KCF (find out)
●​ Recovery of immovable property
●​ Money suits

10
 UNIT 2

●​ Injunction
○​ Case: Ramesh Goyal v. Dwinderpal Singh 2008 Cal HC
■​ Petitioner filed Revision application - was pendente lite owner - … (read it
and summarise it)
■​ Petition suit for properties in Del and Kol -- relief valued at Rs. 9L and
upper limit of court’s pecuniary jurisdiction is Rs.10L -- Def filed for
transfer of suit -- Pltf applied to amend plaint in answer -- amended plaint
clause “Sch 1 property transaction at Rs.14,67,000 -- whether court as
juris to hear partition suit??
●​ CH:
■​ ## but in Kar, value of case is value of immovable property i.e the day its
filed -- pec jurisdiction of court will be determined based on value of
property on date of filing the case || Kol. HC →

Case Summary by Chaitanya: Ramesh Goel vs. Dwinderpal Singh and Ors.
Facts
The Petitioner (Defendant No.3 of the Original Suit) filed application under Article 227 of the
Constitution against an order passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The
Petitioner/Defendant No. 3 was a pendente lite transferee in respect of one of the suit properties
and was impleaded as a party to the partition suit under Order 1 Rule 10.
Defendant no.3 had purchased the property for a total consideration of Rs.14,67,000/- during the
pendency of the partition suit. In the context of aforementioned value, the Defendant No. 3
alleged that since the valuation of the suit property exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-, the Trial Judge lacks
pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, the Defendant No. 3 prayed for return of the
plaint to the plaintiff for presentation of the same to the appropriate Court having both territorial
and pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. This prayer of the Defendant No. 3 for return of the
plaint was rejected by the Trial Judge. Hence, a revision application was filed by the Defendant
No. 3/Petitioner.
Issues
a.​ Whether the Trial court judge had the pecuniary jurisdiction?
b.​ How to calculate the value of the suit?
Findings: The pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit depends on the valuation stated in the plaint
unless it is determined by the Court that the reliefs claimed in the suit have been under-valued.
Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit depends upon the valuation of the suit property as on
the date of institution of the suit and the subsequent increase in the valuation of the suit property
may take away the jurisdiction of the Court to try a suit due to an enhancement in the value of
the property during the pendency of the suit.
Since the Plaintiff did not dispute the market valuation of the suit property as alleged by
Defendant No.3, the High Court held that the Trial Judge lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to try the
suit from the date of amendment of the plaint. The order of the Trial Court was set aside.

11
 UNIT 2

○​ Case: ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Limtex India Ltd 2011 Cal HC

■​ Credit arrangement -- Pet/App looking to declare it null and void and
looking for injunction -- sum is 18L -- if Kol HC has jurisdiction wrt City
Civil Court (CCC) of Kol (10L juris) -- initially under trial judge who
rejected it -- Pet says its not maintainable in the Kol CCC as the
arrangement is based on an master agreement made in Mumbai so the
jurisdiction should be in Mumbai as no cause of action in Kol so Kol CCC
has no jurisdiction -- Def said its not a recovery suit and is merely an
injunction case as managers were in Kol -- suit valued at Rs. 200 as per
def and is thus under the pecuniary jurisdiction of Kol courts -- if trial
judge justified??? -- Agreement says that parties are agreeing to submit to
the HC of Mumbai -- Kol HC said the suit is valued is at Rs.18L and not
Rs.200 so Kol CCC has no jurisdiction -- reason 1 suit was wrongly
valued and was a claim suit disguised as an injunction and reason 2
RDDBFI bars the Bom HC and should be dealt in the DRT Mumbai.
■​ Subject matter jurisdiction and Pecuniary Jurisdiction.
■​ Value of suit claimed to be Rs. 200 -- Declaration suit
○​ Value of subject matter of suit will be determined based on the relief/prayer
clause
○​ Effect of court’s order exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction??
■​ Inherent lack of jurisdiction ← → Irregular exercise of jurisdiction
■​ In case bona fide mistake and case is decided based on merits -- should
there be a hearing from the start?
■​ A writ can be filed -- but case is fully decided on merits
■​ Cases have held that the case is irregular proceeding when it comes to
pecuniary jurisdiction issues (only)
■​ Two requirement:
●​ Opposite party did not raise objection at the correct time
●​ Lack of jurisdiction has not significantly/adversely defeated the
process of justice
■​ Cannot be invalidated for pecuniary jurisdiction issues only.
■​ Order is valid as long as it meets the 2 requirements.
○​ Example: Possession of property and injunction - what's the value of the suit
-- s.24(b) of Kar Suit valuation Act.
○​ Determining element of value of suit is based on the nature of remedy/relief.

2.​ Subject Matter Jurisdiction S.9

○​ Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.—The Courts shall (subject to the
provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature
excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

12
 UNIT 2

○​ 2 conditions:
■​ Suit must be of civil nature
■​ Cognizance of such suit must not be expressly or impliedly barred (eg.
special tribunals and courts, rent control act, family courts act for divorce
cases)
○​ Suit of a civil nature - covers private rights and obligations of a citizen.​
■​ Political and religious questions are not covered
○​ Q: How can s.9 be amended by States -
○​ Suits must be of civil nature:
■​ Explanation I -- principle question should be of civil nature, incidental
questions relating to case or religious ceremonies
●​ Incase of such religious properties -- to resolve the dispute, the
court may end up enforcing the terms of the trust deed which
specifies the scripture and other terms involved or mentioned in the
trust deed to dwell into aspects of religious scriptures. -- hence for
civil disputes the court will address religious issues
●​ If the principle question in a suit is of a civil nature (right to
property or to an office) and the adjudication incidentally involves
the determination relating to a caste or religious question or to
religious rights and ceremonies, it does not cease to be a suit of a
civil nature and the jurisdiction of a civil court is not barred.
(Explanation II)
●​ The main dispute would be a property dispute itself and the
religious aspect is only incidental
●​ Caste issues - civil case cant be filed
■​ Right to property; damages for civil wrongs; specific performance of
contract or damages for breach of contract; suit for rent -- are civil
■​ Rights of worship? Restitution of conjugal rights?
●​ Eg: Not being allowed to enter a place of worship -- civil case? --
no as its purely religious nature (writs allowed)
●​ Eg: the priest example -- no cant file case
●​ RCR -- (...)?
■​ Expulsion from caste? Right to religious position (mahant)? Right to hold
religious ceremonies? -- Not civil nature cases
○​ Cognizance of such suit must not be expressly or impliedly barred
■​ Specialised courts and Tribunals have been set up - MACT, Arbitration
bodies ets
■​ Expressly barred -- Land reforms Act, Cooperative societies Act,
Telegraph Act, Electricity Act, State Municipalities Act, MV Act(s.94)
●​ Barred by any enactment for the time being in force

13
 UNIT 2

●​ Every presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of

a civil court and the provision of exclusion of jurisdiction of a
court must be strictly construed.
●​ If there is any doubt about the ousting of jurisdiction of a civil
court, the court will lean to an interpretation which would maintain
the jurisdiction
■​ Implidely barred -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ID Act(s.11)
●​ Barred by general principles of law
●​ Where a specific remedy is given by a statute, it thereby deprives
the person who insists upon a remedy of any other form than that
given by the statute.
●​ May even be barred due to public policy -- eg: Sec.23 ICA (or)
recovery of costs incurred in a criminal prosecution
■​ Irrespective of bar(express/implied) -- civil court has jurisdiction, when:
●​ Created by precedents and not statutory
●​ Special statute provisions not complied with
●​ Fundamental principles of judicial procedure not followers
●​ Alternate remedy not adequate
●​ Special statute provisions challenged
●​ Case: Dhulabhai v. State of MP - AIR 1969 SC 78
○​ Even if civil courts jurisdiction barred by special statute
○​ Sales Tax case -- assesses (manufacturers) filed civil case
for wrongful imposition of tax and the provision is not
lawful -- claimed for refund of tax -- filed regular civil case
-- objection raised by tax dept that there is a special
provision in the Sales tax act which expressly barred the
jurisdiction for disputes arising from the statute
(maintainability of the case) -- while the case was on,
another party went to the HC and filed a WP -- HC held the
tax to be unconstitutional with retrospective effect.
○​ SC: (general rule/provision/principles)
i.​ If Special statute providing alternate remedy, is not
complied with/followed -- civil court has
jurisdiction
ii.​ If special statute expressly bars civil court’s
jurisdiction, inadequacy of alternative remedy is
relevant, not decisive. If special statute impliedly
bars civil court’s jurisdiction, inadequacy of
alternate remedy per se is decisive to confer
jurisdiction to civil court

14
 UNIT 2

iii.​ If special statute provision challenged as ultra vires

-- civil court has jurisdiction
iv.​ If special statute provision declared unconstitutional
-- civil court has jurisdiction
v.​ If tax statute has no provision for refund of
excess tax collected -- civil court has jurisdiction
vi.​ Challenge to assessment under tax statute in tax
tribunal only unless constitutionality of assessing
provision in tax statute challenged -- civil court
has jurisdiction.
vii.​ Exclusion of civil court’s jurisdiction not to be
readily inferred (exception)

●​
■​ Case: Premier Automobiles v. Kamlekar
●​ SC laid principles -- jurisdiction of civil court in Industrial
Disputes:
○​ If dispute is not ID nor relate to any enforcement of any
other right under the IDA -- remedy lies with Civil Court
○​ If a dispute is an ID arising out of a right or liability under
the general or common law and not under the IDA --
jurisdiction of a civil court is alternative leaving it to the
election of the plaintiff
○​ If an Industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right
or an obligation created under the Act, then the only
remedy available to a suitor is to get an adjudication under
the IDA.
○​ If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created
under the IDA such as Chpt-VA, then the remedy for its
enforcement is either s.33C or the raising of an
industrial dispute.

15
 UNIT 2

■​ Case: Mafatlal Case - Civil Court bar on tax Refund case: (Google
Classroom)

●​
■​ Case: Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant
●​ Facts: The respondents in these appeals are the employees of the
appellant-corporation, viz., Rajasthan State Road Transport
[Link] to disciplinary enquiries held against them
on charges of misconduct, their services were terminated. They
filed civil suits for a declaration that the order terminating their
services is illegal and invalid and for a further declaration that they
must be deemed to have continued and are still continuing in the
service of the Corporation with all consequential [Link]
Corporation resisted the suits on the ground inter alia that the Civil
court had no jurisdiction to entertain the [Link] Trial court
decreed the suits as prayed for. --- Corpn: According to them the
respondent's only remedy was to approach the Labour Court for
the reliefs sought for by them in the suit.
●​ Issues observed by the court -- It is this: where a dispute between
the employer and the employee does not involve the recognition or
enforcement of a right or obligation created by the Industrial
Disputes Act and where such dispute also amounts to an industrial
dispute within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, whether the
Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit with respect to such
dispute is barred?
●​ Court held:
○​ Based on Dhaula case: By and large, industrial disputes
are bound to be covered by Principle No.3. (Principle No.3

16
 UNIT 2

says that where the dispute relates to the enforcement of a

right or obligation created by the Act, the only remedy
available is to get an adjudication under the Act.)
○​ Thus a dispute involving the enforcement of the rights and
liabilities created by the certified Standing Orders has
necessarily got to be adjudicated only in the forums created
by the Industrial Disputes Act provided, of course, that
such a dispute amounts to an industrial dispute within the
meaning of Sections 2(k) and 2-A of Industrial Disputes
Act
○​ The Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain such
suits.
●​ Principles:
○​ Where the dispute arises from general law of contract, i.e.,
where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general law of
contract, a suit filed in civil court cannot be said to be not
maintainable, even though such a dispute may also
constitute an "industrial dispute"
○​ Where, however, the dispute involves recognition,
observance or enforcement of any of the rights or
obligations created by the Industrial Disputes Act, the only
remedy is to approach the forums created by the said Act.
○​ Similarly, where the dispute involves the recognition,
observance or enforcement of rights and obligations created
by enactments like Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946 - which can be called 'sister enactments'
to Industrial Disputes Act - and which do not provide a
forum for resolution of such disputes, the only remedy shall
be to approach the forums created by the Industrial
Disputes Act provided they constitute industrial disputes
within the meaning of Section 2(k) and Section 2-A of
Industrial Disputes Act or where such enactment says that
such dispute shall be either treated as an industrial dispute
or says that it shall be adjudicated by any of the forums
created by the Industrial Disputes Act. Otherwise, recourse
to Civil Court is open.
■​ Case: Saraswati v. Lachanna:
●​ The suit in question was filed for redemption of the suit property
by the plaintiffs/respondents.

17
 UNIT 2

○​ It was alleged in the plaint that the property mentioned in

the schedule of the plaint had been mortgaged through a
registered deed, in favour of the father of the original
defendant and possession had been also delivered to him.
●​ a plea was taken on behalf of the defendants that the Civil Court
had no jurisdiction to try the suit in question. The Trial Court came
to the finding that the plaintiffs had right to redeem the mortgage,
and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
●​ S.99 Tenancy Act -- it is apparent that a Civil Court shall have no
jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question "which is by
or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by
the Tahsildar...". In other words, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
has been ousted only in respect of such questions which are
required to be decided or dealt with under the provisions of the
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

●​
■​ Case: State of AP vs. Majeti Laxmi Kantha rao 2000
●​ These appeals arise out of a suit brought by Manjeti Venkata
Nagabhushana Rao and Manjeti Lakshmi Kanta Rao against the
State of Andhra Pradesh and others for a declaration that the
property comprised in R.S. No. 400 with a building thereon
bearing Municipal No. 15/184 at Chilakalapudi, Masulipatnam

18
 UNIT 2

measuring Ac. 17-61 cents in which the plaintiffs have a half share
is not subject to any public or charitable trust or endowment or
provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act,

●​
■​ Case: State of Kerala v. Ramaswamy Aiyer
●​ It is true that even if the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded,
where the provisions of the statute have not been complied with or
the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure, the civil courts have
jurisdiction to examine those cases :
●​
○​ S.9 also creates jurisdiction -- covers cases that are not mentioned nor are barred

19
 UNIT 2

○​

(15 and 16 Feb)

3.​ Territorial jurisdiction/Place of suing - Sec.16-20
○​ Sec.16 -- Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate.
■​ Local limits for ([Link]):
●​ (a) recovery of immovable property with or without rent or
profits,
●​ (b) partition of immovable property,
●​ (c) foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of
or charge upon immovable property,
●​ (d) the determination of any other right to or interest in
immovable property,
●​ (e) compensation for wrong to immovable property,
●​ (f) recovery of movable property actually under distraint or
attachment,
○​ clause (f) is linked/associated to [Link] viz all the allied
properties attached to the immovable property (can be seen
in the ED or IT recovery suits)
○​ Attached or confiscated by authority
○​ Partition cannot be enforced by clause f
■​ Reason: convenience of judiciary -- courts requires evidence such as land
records and also easy to conduct investigations.
■​ Cause of action doesn't matter. Jurisdiction depends of the locality of the
property solely u/s.16
■​ Proviso:

20
 UNIT 2

●​ Can be filed where the defendant is present or local limit of where

the property is located
●​ For: obtaining relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to,
immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may,
●​ where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his
personal obedience,
●​ Defendant’s presence → voluntarily resides, or carries on business,
or personally works for gain.
■​ Concurrent jurisdiction -- law has provided a choice for multiple fora.
○​ Sec.17 -- Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different
Courts.
■​ immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the
suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate :
■​ Eg: Factory in BLR, Oil refinery in Mangalore, Coffee estate and farm
house in coorg and tea estate in Ooty.
●​ All can be clubbed together -- hence can be filed in BLR itself.
●​ Claim is as a single estate/ single [Link].
○​ [Link] can include estate.
■​ Provided that the pecuniary jurisdiction has to be followed.
■​ ‘May be instituted’ -- so there is a choice
○​ Sec.18 --
○​ Sec.19 -- Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.
■​ Torts against persons = wrongs to person
■​ Trespass to goods = wrong to movables
■​ Choice of jurisdiction given to the plaintiff
■​ if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one
Court and
■​ the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for
gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court,
■​ Defendant’s presence is what matters, and not that of the Plaintiff.
○​ Sec.20 -- Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of
action arises
■​ Residuary clause -- General law.
■​ Where the defendant(s), at the time of commencement of the suit
●​ Actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain
●​ (above) provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is
given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or

21
 UNIT 2

personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such

institution;
■​ Or based on cause of action
●​ Cause of action is a set of events that gives rise to the claim.
●​ Either wholly or partly
●​ Eg: Loan’s cause of action would be -- formation of contract +
breach of contract + extension (if any)

○​
■​ Case: Inox Air Products Ltd. vs Rathi Ispat Ltd.
●​ Sec.16(d)???

○​
■​ Case:
●​ Sec.20 cant be used ---
●​ S.19 is to be eliminated as there is a partition suit and not mov
property solely
●​ Sec.17 --- K will have a choice
○​ Either two partition suits in west-godavari (wg+c property
partition suits)
○​ Or [Link] partition wg + [Link] partition in chennai --
both cant be filed in chennai.
●​ The case expanded the scope of s.17 -- its only related to
immovable property -- hence s.16(b) used
●​ partition suit has to be filed in west-godavari court including the
property in chennai -- cant be filed in chennai as we cant extend
s.17 to the chennai courts

○​
■​ Case:
●​ Tort to immovable property → s.16

22
 UNIT 2

●​ s.16(e) → case filed where the property is located which is Mysore

BUT… → there is also aspects of personal obedience = proviso of
s.16 can also be applicable BUT… →
○​ Can be filed in Mysore or BLR
i.​ s.16(e) = Mysore
ii.​ S.16 Proviso + s.20 Explanation = Mysore
iii.​ S.16 Proviso + s.20 Explanation 1st part = BLR

○​
■​ S.19 applicable -- wrong is against [Link]
■​ Theres a choice:
●​ Customs works all over Maharashtra -- Def is State Dept so case
should be filed in principle place of business -- State depts usually
mention the court where it can be sued by means of
notifications/rules; so where the main dept is located (capital) so
mumbai
●​ Choice is between Bhandara (where wrong has taken place) or
Mumbai (based on location of the principle office of customs dept)
●​ Note: choice can be opted only by what’s been provided by law
■​ But here the Plaintiff has filed in Akola -- Court allowed Akola civil
court to have jurisdiction u/s.19
●​ Chain of causation wrt place where wrong was done or where def
is carrying on business = akola+bhandara -- s.19
●​ Based on the interpretation of “wrong done”

○​
■​ S.19 -- due to wrong to persons
■​ Civil case can be filed in Bom. Civil Court
■​ Wrong was done in Bom (filed) and BLR (summons was served in
BLR -- affects reputation -- principle of remoteness of damages and chain
of causation)
■​ Bom has jurisdiction as
●​ Def lives in bom

23
 UNIT 2

●​ Wrong done in Bom

■​ BLR has jurisdiction
●​ Wrong done wrt serving summons is in BLR.

(22-23 Feb)
22nd Notes - Grisha’s PDF
Section.10 - Res Sub judice
●​ Stay of suit.—
○​ No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is
also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the
same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim
litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any
other Court in [India] have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any
Court beyond the limits of [India] stablished or continued by [the Central
Government ***.] and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court].
○​ Explanation.—The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the
Courts in [India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.
●​ Conditions:
○​ Suit → subsequently filed - bar on proceedings with its trial
○​ Matter in issue in the subsequent suit - directly and substantially in issue in the
other pending suit also
○​ Same parties or representatives
○​ Same title
■​ If title is different matter will change even if parties are same
○​ Previously instituted suit pending
○​ Court where former suit pending competent to try subsequent suit
●​ Case: Heinz Italia vs. Dabur India 2007 Kol HC
●​ Case: NIMHANS v. C. Parameshwara AIR 2005 SC 242 (Sushmita)
○​ X, senior pharmacist in NIMHANS hospital removed from service for
misappropriation of drugs - hospital filed suit in civil court for reimbursement of
loss from misappropriation of drugs - pendente lite X filed complaint againt
hospital in ID tribunal for setting aside termination order and reinstatement -
whether trial of case in ID tribunal barred by s.10?
○​ [Link]. -- Problem based questions. -- tricky
●​ Case will be kept on hold -- till the other court dispenses it or passes a judgement. -- after
this the court (2nd court) will decide the case based on the application of s.11 to dispose
the other case.

24
 UNIT 2

Section.11 - Res judicata

●​ Res judicata.—
○​ No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and
substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former
suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of
them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such
subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised,
and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
○​ Explanation I.—The expression ―former suit shall denote a suit which has
been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior
thereto.
○​ Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court
shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from
the decision of such Court.
○​ Explanation III.—The matter above referred to must in the former suit have
been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly,
by the other.
○​ Explanation IV.—Any matter which might and ought to have been made
ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a
matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
○​ Explanation V.—Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted
by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been
refused.
○​ Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right
or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons
interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to
claim under the persons so litigating .
○​ Explanation VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for
the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or
former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for
the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former
proceeding for the execution of that decree.
○​ Explanation VIII. —An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited
jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a
subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not
competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been
subsequently raised.
●​ Conditions:
○​ Matter directly and substantially in issue is same actually or constructively
○​ Former suit or issue

25
 UNIT 2

○​ Same parties or representatives

○​ Litigating under same title
○​ Court has decided former suit -- competent to try subsequent suit also
○​ Matter subsequently and directly in issue heard finally decided by court
■​ S.10 -legal issues are still pending
■​ S.11 - legal issues and legal questions are not pending in the 1st court --
the case has been heard and decided on merits.
●​ Appeals do not fall under s.11
●​ Expl. 1- date of decision is relevant (s.10 date of filing the case is relevant)
●​ Matter directly and substantially in issue in subsequent same as in former suit
actually (Expl. III - actual res judicata) or constructively ([Link] - constructive res
judicata).
○​ Expl.3 and Expl.4 have to be read together
○​ Actual - orally or written raised
○​ Constructive - ought to have been raised - parties did not raise it - not allowed to
raise this ground again.
○​ Constructive - mandates that parties have to be careful and raise all grounds --
such grounds cant be raised in appeal neither can be filed in/as another suit. --
○​ Request to trial court to add the statement can be done -- but is at the discretion of
the trial court.
○​ Case: State of UP v. Nawab Hussain - AIR 1977 SC 1680

■​
■​ [Link] -- 1st WP SI didn't raise ground of lack of authority, hence 2nd
WP is barred by constructive res judicata.
■​ SI should've raised lack of authority in the 1st WP along with audi alteram
partem. Hence barred by constructive res judicata as any ground not raised
in 1st case cannot be raised in the 2nd case/appeal.
●​ Former suit or issue (Expl. I)
○​ Case: Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy AIR 1971 SC 2355

○​
○​ Pure questions of law are not barred by res judicata.

(1-2 March)
●​ Same Parties or representatives

26
 UNIT 2

○​ Only if 2nd case has been filed between the same parties to the 1st suit
○​ Also applicable to co-plaintiffs and co-defendants -- res judicata and minor -- res
judicata and representative suit (Expl. VI).
■​ Eg: R3 files against P1 wrt to point no.4 of the case -- res judicata
applicable
■​ Eg: P2 and P3 -- res judicata would apply if the issues were raised in the
1st case. If new issue then res judicata not applicable as the issue in 2nd
case could not have been raised in the 1st case at all.
○​ Res judicata and minor -- if in the 1st case one of the party is a minor and the
legal guardian is also a party, what will happen when the minor becomes an adult:

■​
■​ SC: case is not barred by res judicata as one of the grounds is that the legal
guardian had defrauded the minor (which is an additional issue) and the
1st case is defeated
●​ Same Parties litigating under same title:
○​ Eg: A is a tenant and an executor of a will -- 2 cases against B (will and
tenancy)-- not barred even if against the same parties -- issues different as title
also different.

●​
○​ 1st case filed in Munsif and 2nd case filed in subordinate court -- pecuniary
jurisdiction different due to mense profit -- both cases decided on merits -- both
cases passed -- argument regarding non maintainability was raised as 2nd case
was barred by res judicata as 1st case was decided by munsif court that does not
have the jurisdiction -- Based on explanation 8 of s.11 issues relating to
declaration of title res judicata would be applied, but for mense profit would not
be barred as it wasnt raised in the munsif court
○​ Res judicata can be applicable to parts of a case as well (unlike s.10).

27
 UNIT 2

●​ Matter substantially and directly in issue HEARD AND FINALLY DECIDED BY

COURT ON MERITS (expln. 5)
○​ If not on merits (eg. on grounds of jurisdiction) then res judicata would not be
applicable.

○​
■​ 2 separate cause of action -- performance guarantee and bank guarantee --
1st case was of (cause of action is) performance guarantee and was
dismissed on technical ground -- 2nd case was filed for breach of contract
against principle debtor and bank as surety, argument of bank was that 2nd
case was not maintainable as its barred by res judicata -- bank has a
separate liability -- issues also became different (construction contract and
performance guarantee contract) -- res judicata not applicable -- Case 1:
Issues in performance guarantee case are different from issues in breach of
construction contract case -- 2nd case on breach of construction contract is
not barred by res judicata
■​ How would the answer change if state files another suit against bank on
performance guarantee with principal-debtor as defendant no.2? -- Will
not be barred as the first case was decided merely on technical grounds
and not on merits.
○​ Res judicata and writ petitions:
■​ CPC is not applicable to writ petitions.(procedure wise)

■​
(vimp)
●​ Q: Whether WP to SC u/Art.32 is barred by res judicata on ground
that same dispute already decided in WP to HC u/Art.226?
○​ Usually res judicata does not apply in cases of appeal --
○​ SC told that jurisdiction of the WP (art.226 and art.32) as
both are at par with each other. (even though art.226 is
wider, but both are same)
○​ res judicata would bar the WP as it involves the same
question of law which is essential and WPs usually have
the same jurisdictional effect (concurrent jurisdiction).

28
 UNIT 2

○​ If writ appeal then no bar

●​ Ratio: HC u/Art.226 has concurrent jurisdiction as SC
u/Art.32. And res judicata would be applicable. But writ appeal
can be filed.
■​ Res Judicata Applicable to WP except habeas corpus
●​ Ghulam Sarwar v. UoI AIR 1967 SC 1335
○​ Pakistani national in India on journalism relate visa was
arrested without charges -- filed writ of habeas corpus in
the HC -- released and arrested him again and filed the 2nd
habeas corpus WP -- state argued that 2nd case is barred by
res judicata as SC made res judicata applicable to writ
petitions -- cause of action changes wrt habeas corpus as
each day of imprisonment is a new cause of action.
HENCE HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT BOUND BY RES
JUDICATA BUT OTHER WRITS ARE.
●​ Difference between Res judicata and Res Subjudice

○​
○​ S. 10 is not dismissed and is only suspended -- s. 11 cases are dismissed
○​ S.11 courts should be concurrent -- s.10 court doesn't matter

Foreign Judgement
●​ S.2(6) -- judgement passed by a foreign court.
●​ Ss. 13, 14, 44A.
●​ If CPC recognises foreig judgment and res judicata

29
 UNIT 2

●​
●​ One of the parties is an Indian (minimum criteria) and wants to file a second case on the
same issue in the Indian courts.
●​ Foreign judgement as res judicata -- sec.13 unless…(grounds on which res judicata
wont be applicable)
a.​ Pronounced by court not of competent jurisdiction
■​ Jurisdiction of foreign court would be conferred when:
■​ Person is subject to foreign country
●​ Eg: civil transactions between two indian tourists in NY wont be
applicable before the NY Courts -- case can be directly dealt with
in India itself.
■​ One of the person should be a subject of the foreign country (resident,
domicile, citizen, etc) -- foreign court will get jurisdiction -- even
applicable when person was temporarily present and was served summons
in that country
■​ Person is resident of foreign country when action commenced
■​ Person is temporarily present in foreign country when summons served
■​ Person sued as plaintiff in earlier case in foreign country
■​ Party voluntarily appears on summons or submits to jurisdiction.
b.​ Not on merit (part has been recorded on the phone)
c.​ Proceedings are founded on incorrect view of international law or refusal to
recognise law in India
■​ Case: Anubha vs. Vikas Aggarwal AIR 2003 Del 175.
●​ Grounds of divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage
(IBM) -- case filed in foreign country which had grounds of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage for divorce -- wife filed RCR
case in Del Fam Court -- husband argued that divorce order already
obtained in foreign court -- del fam court refused to accept the
foreign judgement as IBM was not recognised in India -- parties
were indian, dispute was based on HMA so foreign court had to
apply HMA -- hence not recognised

30
 UNIT 2

d.​ Proceedings opposed to natural justice

e.​ Proceedings where judgement obtained by fraud
f.​ Judgement sustains claim based on breach on any Indian law.
■​ Eg: Insider trading, prostitution, sale of weed is prohibited in Indian law --
certain countries do not prohibit such acts -- when there is any transaction
with one of the party being Indian, and there is a civil dispute and foreign
courts applies their law, such foreign judgements are not recognised in
India.
○​ ##### shashank -- (iii) is applicable when indian law is brought on record,
considered and rejected in the foreign court whereas (vi) applies when it isn't even
brought on record.
●​ Sec: 14 -- Presumption of judgement to be by foreign court of competent jurisdiction -
burden of proof on party alleging exception under s.13
○​ Courts usually consider the law to be applicable
○​ Its up to the party to raise the objection against the enforcement of the foreign
judgement.
●​ Execution of foreign judgement:
●​ Section 44A
○​ (doubts -- refer to takwani once)
●​ Suit of foreign judgment
●​ Case: Badat & Co. vs. East India trading Co AIR 1964 SC

Representative Suit:
●​ Order I Rule 8 read with sec.11 expl. VI.
●​ (Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a
private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such
right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so
litigating .)
○​ Private right that is common to multiple set if people -- all such persons interested
in the pvt right shall be deem to have a claim -- (basically similar to class action)
--
○​ What will happen if def is same, claim is same but plaintiff is different -- not
barred by res judicata ideally -- BUT -- explain.6 -- barred due to the fact that
others have a ‘deemed claim’ along with the original plaintiff -- law has created a
fiction that maria has claimed with me and shashank in the first case (eg given by
maam).
○​ Not constructive res judicata as its not related to the issue, but here its related to
the party

31
 UNIT 2

●​
(8th-9th March)
●​ Order I Rule 8 -- One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest
●​ Difference with PIL -- person filing it is not claiming or is not aggrieved in PIL and in
representative suit, the person himself is seeking redressal as well.
●​ General rule -- only an aggrieved person can approach the court -- exception is PIL,
representative suit.
●​ Numerous persons (not parties) has not been defined -- but the courts have explained
what shall come under the scope of numerous parties --substantial and ascertained -- can
be calculated --
●​ Same legal interest -- right to relief/remedy is arising from the same act from the same
defendant
●​ Permission should be granted by the court.
●​ TN Housing Board Case -- as interest is same event though right violated is of different
persons and is different -- SC O1R8 doesn't mandate the same cause of action, it only
mandates the same legal interest.
●​ Procedure -
○​ Notice to all persons interested in suit -- Court permission
○​ Person represented in suit -- apply to be added as party u/r.8(3). → provided that
the person is not satisfied with the rep. or even if the court feels the same that the
plaintiff is not carrying the suit properly (court is concerned about the people’s
right and thus the court can ask another person to be substituted as plaintiff --
wide power of the court).
○​ Original party can be substituted by court u/r8(5)
○​ Withdrawal/Abandonment of Rep Suit u/O23r.1(5).-- notice to be sent to others
and have consented or court can substitute
○​ Compromise of representative suit u/O.23r.3B -- normal civil case its allowed --
but for rep suits compromise has to be accepted by all persons in the rep suit

32
 UNIT 2

○​ Decree in rep suit acts as res judicata for all persons represented in suit (though
not parties to suit) -- sec.11 expl VI.

Joinder of Parties:
●​ Audi alteram partem
●​ Institution of suit - sec.26 r/w [Link].R.1
●​ Joinder of Parties -- Order I
○​ All suits be decided finally in presence of all praties involved in dispute, on merits
00 avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings. (ensure that no one is missed out
and audi alteram partem
●​ Joinder of Plaintiffs - Rule 1,2
○​ Right to relief to all from the same act or transaction and
○​ If separate suit filed, common questions or law or fact arise
○​ Then they can be joined in the same case
○​ Eg:

Rep suit cant be filed here, but can file joinder case (right here is different as
landlord right is diff from tenant right
●​ Joinder of Defendants - Rule 3, 3A, 5, 6, 7
○​ Right to relief against all from same act/transaction and
○​ If separate suit filed, common questions of law/fact arise

○​
-- yes it can be filed as cause of action is the negligent driving of both drivers --
separate cases can also be filed as there are common questions of fact/law (eg:
extent of compensation arising due to accident caused by both P and Q, questions
of law that would be common is whether or not both of the drivers are negligent ||
contributory negligence...)
○​ Rule 5 -- extent of relief can be varying of all defendants.
○​ Rule 6 -- where they are parties who are jointly and severally liable from one
contract, then the plaintiff can file one single case against all the parties.
○​ Rule 7 -- if plaintiff has doubt against whom the legal right is to be enforced, he
can add all possible persons and the court shall decide and clarify.
●​ Necessary and Proper Parties:
○​ Necessary parties -- presence indispensable for effective disposal of suit and
without whose presence relief cant be adequately provided.
■​ Eviction suit -- is tenant NP??? -- yes

33
 UNIT 2

○​ Proper parties -- presence required for deciding suit by effective order can be
passed without party
■​ They can be disconnected to the relief sought
■​ Eg: when circumstantial evidence is involved
■​ Required but not mandatory
■​ Eviction suit by landlord -- is subtenant PP??? -- yes -- main tenant would
be NP.

○​
-- if HP is indispensable to the case -- HP cant be the necessary party as the claim
is against R. HP can be the proper party as the claim is solely against R.
○​ Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadai Begum AIR 1958 SC.
●​ Rule 9 - Misjoinder and Non-joinder
○​ Misjoinder - persons ought not to be joined as parties to suit u/O1,R1,3 but have
been joined
■​ Added without cause
■​ Wrongly added persons -- too many unwanted persons for the case as
P’tiff or Def
○​ Non-joinder -- Persons ought to have been joined as parties to suit u/OIR1,2
have not been joined
■​ Need to have been added for effective disposal of the case
○​ General principle of rule 9 -- if mistake has been done in adding persons, then it
would not be considered as invalidating error… its a mere irregularity.
○​ These are mistakes in drafting
○​ These mistakes are irregularities and will not invalidate the suit proceedings
○​ Proviso -- this irregularity is not acceptable if the parties not added are necessary
party, the suit shall be dismissed (defeated).
○​ Misjoinder and non joinder of PP is irregularity.
○​ Non joinder of NP is a ground of dismissal.
●​ Rule 13 -- objections to misjoinder or nonjoinder
●​ Power of court un joinder of parties -- Rule 10, 8A
○​ Rule 10(2) -- court can strike out parties (can be even done suo motu)
○​ Nonjoinders of NP -- can either dismiss the case or can even allow a person to be
added in the case as defendant (power of trial court).
○​ Add, strike out, remove, substitute, transpose
■​ Transpose -- designation of party changes

34
 UNIT 2

○​ but
defendant can be added without consent.

○​

(15th and 16th March)

35
UNIT - 3

Plaint

●​

●​
Return, Rejection and Admission of Plaint:
●​ Return of plaint - Rule 10,10A, 10B
○​ Technical grounds dismissal and not on merits
○​ Res judicata won't apply
○​ In instances where there is a lack of jurisdiction
○​ Done at the admission stage
○​ Rejected on a preliminary ground.
○​ Ground is purely related to jurisdictional issues. (Court is harsh with the Plaintiffs
advocate).
○​ The minute we hear it → case has to be filed before a court of competent
jurisdiction.
○​ Allahabad Bank vs. Shank (Steel Fab Pvt Ltd) AIR 2008 Cal 96.
■​ Bank filer money suit for debt of more than Rs.10L in civil court -
RDDBFI Act provides for express bar (cases to be only filed in DRT) -

36
UNIT - 3

whether suit dismissed or returned ? - Plaint will be returned due to lack of

jurisdiction. (Whenever we see dismissal, there is a presumption that
dismissal is on merits on merits of case, so has to be used with caution. So
it's necessary to differentially state dismissed or returned. "Dismissed on
preliminary state due to lack of jurisdiction" can be used). So here in this
case it was returned due to bar on jurisdiction.
○​ Time for return to plaint: any time during pendency of suit, when lack of
jurisdiction comes to knowledge of the court.
○​ If pecuniary jurisdiction is lacking its irregular(can be appealed later). But for
subject matter its an inherent lack of jurisdiction (apparent lack of jurisdiction).
○​ Procedure:
■​ Rule 10A - Notice to Plaintiff by Court -- discretion of court to fix date of
appearance of parties in court where returned plaint to be re-presenetded --
notice of said date to parties to suit -- said notice to defendant deemed
summons.
○​ Limitation and Court Fees:
■​ Its returned?? (self research)
■​ Limitation period → incae it lapse of limitation what happens or when
does limitation begin (??) (it would be calcuated from the date of order of
return)

■​
■​ Date of institution of suit -- date of re-presenting plaint to competent court
●​ Rejection of Plaint - Rules 11,12,13 (vimp - 10 marker)
○​ Has the same end result as return.
■​ Case dismissed on technical grounds on preliminary grounds -- mistakes
can be corrected.
■​ 2nd case not barred by res judicata
○​ Grounds:
■​ Cause of action not disclosed -- legal right and legal duty has to be
mentioned in the case.
■​ Undervaluation of relief in plaint even after reasonable opportunity to
correct
■​ Insufficient stamping of plaint, even after reasonable opportunity to
correct.
■​ Barred by limitation or any other aw
■​ Not file in duplicate

37
UNIT - 3

■​ Not presented each defendant with copy of plaint and payment of process
fees of summons on order of court.
○​ Even after giving opportunity to correct, and if the mistakes are not corrected then
its rejected.
●​ Admission of Plaint - Rule 9

○​

38
UNIT - 3

UNIT - 3&4

Introduction
●​ sec.89 + Order X
●​ Reference to Order XIV to be made as well.
●​ ADR -- based on nature of case
●​ Court should mention the mode of ADR referred to the parties.
●​ S.89 r/w Order X Rule 1A to 1C.
●​ Mode of resolution under s.89 and it's decision is not res judicata. It's a technical ground
of decision.
○​ Is it adjudication?
○​ Compromise decree is enforceable
●​ No mandatory rule for court to record the terms of the mediation/conciliation
○​ Can plaintiff file a 2nd case for non compliance? --> it wouldn't be covered by res
judicata. so a suit can be filed again on the same cause of action
○​ Parties can request for the court to record

Failure of ADR
●​ Matter not resolved -- parties back to court.
●​ Now def has to file a W.S

Written Statement
●​ Order VIII Rule 1
○​ Filed within 30 days from date of receiving summons (can be extended for
additional 30+30 days, but not more than 90 days from date of service of
summons)

39
UNIT - 3

○​ Extension based on IA (Interlocutory Application) - recorded reasons by court

(2002 onwards)
●​ Extension of additional 30 days u/s.148
○​ Tailored for extending time for every stage in a civil suit
○​ Again IA is to be filed
○​ After the extension -- file extension under s.151 -- used for last resort (residuary
for meeting ends of justice)
●​ So, Days → 30 + 90 + 30(s.148) + 30 or more (s.151)
●​ Reference to s.151 for limit -- double edged sword
●​ (In exam - just order 8 and s.148)
●​ Contents of WS - R2-5, R7-10
○​ Denials - specific, not evasive, separate denial for separate grounds (each para
each denial)
○​ If denial para missed - evidence law states that it's accepted by the defendant
(deemed admission)
○​ If not expressly denied -- deemed to be admitted. Once the court agrees then no
evidence can be used to rebutted the deemed acceptance.
○​ New ground of denial -- filing of additional written statement
■​ Request the court
■​ In case new facts have arisen which could not have been included in the
original WS with due diligence, or law has changed retrospectively.
■​ Basically for full opportunity of defence (Audi alteram partem)
○​ Documents relied for defence to be annexed
■​ Original documents to be attached with the WS

Set off -- Rule 6 (problem based questions, very important for exam)
●​ Conditions
○​ Money Suit filed by Plaintiff
■​ Claimed by Defendant.
○​ Defendant's claim for ascertained amount against plaintiff
■​ Incase P asks for unliquidated damages - P has to justify the estimate -
Defendant can't argue that P has committed any other act against Def and
needs unliquidated damages.
■​ Amount has to be ascertained by the court
■​ Defendant can make a claim of set off (fixed amount) against the Plaintiff
who is seeking unliquidated damages.

○​

40
UNIT - 3

■​ If Def claim is more than Pl claim -- should be legally recoverable -- not

under Rule 6 tho
○​ Defs claim legally receivable : not time barred (equitable set off)
○​ Defs claim within pecuniary jurisdiction of court: Def to pay court fees on own
claim.
○​ Plaintiff and Defendant should be in the same capacity for both debts. (Like Def
can't claim breach of trust against Plaintiff as a trustee)

●​
○​ Answer 1 - yes
○​ Answer 2 - no as limitations
○​ Answer 3 - give accounts -- to check if this amount is ascertained -- no claim of
set-off. (Important case)

(Add notes from Varsha)

Summons (06/04)
●​ Practical manifestation of Audi alteram partem.
●​ Appendix B

●​
How should summons be sent and who sends it
●​ Sent by the court only.

41
UNIT - 3

●​ Order 5 -
○​ Personal or direct service (rules 9-15)
○​ Substantial service (17-20)
○​ Service by plaintiff (r.9A)
●​ Personal service
○​ Handed over by the court officer -- goes to the address of the defendant
■​ Address is provided by the plaintiff.
○​ Defendant within court jurisdiction (R.9)
■​ Court officer to defendant in person or agent, as far as practicable (R.10,
12).
■​ RPAD/Speed Post/ Approved courier/ Fax/ Email (HC Rules)
●​ RPAD is a good evidence of notice -- very authoritative.
●​ Email reaching inbox -- constructive notice -- sufficient
●​ Paid by the plaintiff -- later, if the plaintiff wins then it comes as a
cost of litigation.
○​ Defendant outside court jurisdiction (sec.28)
■​ Court can delegate court officers to physically travel. (Rarely used)
■​ Speed Post/ approved couriers/ fax/ email
○​ More than one defendant? -- individual summons to each defendant (R.11)

○​
●​ Substituted service
○​ Def refuses to accept/ def not found after due reasonable diligence/ DEf avoiding
service
○​ Is not mandatory -- optional (Plaintiff)
■​ Affixture on Def residence/work (R.17 r/w R.18, R.19): summons copy on
conspicuous part by service officer
●​ Details such as place, time date to be mentioned
■​ Affixture on court (r.20): summons copy on conspicuous part of
courthouse and def residence/work
■​ Newspaper advertisement (R.20(1-A)): daily newspaper circulating in
locality of def last known address.

42
UNIT - 3

○​ Defendant would have deemed duly served -- valid service

○​ No acknowledgement -- Mandatory endorsement (serving officer or newspaper
page).

Appearance and Non-appearance of Parties : Order 9

●​ After summons - personal appearance of Plaintiff and Defendant in court.
●​ Mandatory -- appear after summons stage
●​ 4 situations:
○​ Both parties present -- court will refer them to a mandatory ADR (s.89 r.w Order
X R.1A-1C).
■​ Court will fix the date.
■​ Mediator to send mediation process and report to the court.
○​ Both parties absent
■​ Rule 3 and 4
■​ Rule 3 -- suit dismissed
■​ Rule 4 -- remedies: fresh suit/ application to set aside dismissal
■​ Res judicata??? → dismissal → no res judicata as dismissal was on
technical grounds as the case was not dismissed on merits. (no court fee
refund)
■​ If Plaintiff has a bonafide cause for not being present -- Plaintiff can file a
misc. Cause to set aside the dismissal (better option) → only if P is able to
satisfy the court that there is a bonafide reason → suit can be revived.
○​ Plaintiff is present only -- Defendant absent (Rule 2,4,5,6)
■​ Summons not served -- Plaintiff’s default (fees/plaint copy etc)
●​ Rule 2: suit dismissed
●​ Rule 4: remedies to plaintiff -- fresh suit/ application to set aside
dismissal (sufficient cause)
■​ Summons returned unserved & plaintiff not applied for fresh summons
●​ Rule 5: suit is dismissed -- time limit 7 days -- extension fo time on
grounds
●​ Remedy to plaintiff -- Rule 5 -- fresh suit
●​ Negligence of plaintiff
■​ Summons duly served and def failed
●​ Rule 6A -- order for ex-parte trial

43
UNIT - 3

●​
○​ Defendant is present only -- Plaintiff absent
■​ Rule 8 -- suit dismissed or decree against def based on def’s admission of
plaint
■​ Rule 9 -- remedy to plaintiff -- application to set aside dismissal -- no fresh
suit (deemed res judicata)
●​ Decree ex parte against defendant: R.13
○​ Court ordered ex-parte trial → ex-parte decree against defendant:
■​ Def can file appeal
■​ Summons duly served -- remedies: appeal against ex-parte decree to
appellate court / application to set aside ex-parte decree for sufficient
cause for non-appreance
■​ Summons not duly served -- remedies: appeal/ application to set aside
ex-parte decree for lack of service of summons

○​

44
 UNIT - 4: Interlocutory Applications

UNIT - 4 Interlocutory Applications

(19th April 2021)

Introduction:
●​ Either party
●​ Seeking temporary relief before final order
●​ Types:
○​ Commission
○​ Arrest before judgement
○​ Attachment before judgement
○​ Appointment of Recieved
○​ Temporary Injunction
○​ Lesser regulation → And many more such as Amendment of plaint, Adjournment
(Order 29)...

Arrest before judgement - Order XXXVIII Rule 1 to Rule 4

●​ General Rule → Arrest of defendant takes place after final decree as a mode of
execution of decree
○​ To get the defendant to obey the decision of the court
○​ Not harsh as criminal proceedings -- civil prisons
○​ Arrest is for a limited period of time
●​ Exception: Arrest of defendant takes place during pendency of suit (before decree is
passed)
○​ Special circumstances
○​ Grounds: Rule 1 and 2
■​ Defendant absconds/leaves local jurisdiction of court with intent to
delay/avoid/obstruct proceedings.
■​ Defendant about to leave local jurisdiction of court with intent to
delay/avoid/obstruct proceedings
■​ Defendant disposes of property outside jurisdiction of court with
intent to delay/avoid/obstruct proceedings
■​ has to be proven based on certain facts -- provided that intention to delay
and obstruct the proceedings
■​ Intention is crucial.
■​ Def can file objections to IA (Audi Alteram Partem).
■​ For this → then the court will keep a mini trial to establish the intention.
■​ Movement of Def should not be restricted -- correlated to FR of movement
even before the final decision.

45
 UNIT - 4: Interlocutory Applications

■​ Defendant about to leave India and reasonable probability that

execution of decree be obstructed
●​ Eg: Vijay Mallya - similar proceeding to DRT Rules
●​ Here intention is irrelevant as leaving India is very serious
●​ But we have to prove reasonable probability → easier to prove.
●​ Procedure →
○​ Court to issue warrant - bring defendant to court and issue show cause notice on
why defendant not to be arrested.
■​ Warrant amount is also fixed
■​ If defendant pays amount to warrant officer - then can leave - or dispose
property - no arrest
■​ Warrant amt is substantial wrt value of suit
○​ If defendant reply to show cause notice sufficient → no arrest
○​ If defendant reply to show cause notice insufficient/ no reply → court require
defendant to furnish security (money or surety).
○​ If defendant furnishes security - no arrest
○​ If defendant fails to furnish - arrested
○​ Courts order of arrest - appealable
●​ Period of Detention - Rule 4:
○​ If value of suit is less than rs.50 -- max 6 weeks
○​ Other cases , max 6 months
●​ Subsistence allowance - Sec.57
○​ Applicant (plaintiff) to deposit subsistence allowance - amount specified by court
- if not paid, no arrest
○​ This amount can be reclaimed as costs
●​ Release from detention - Sec.68
○​ When suit is finally disposed or period of 6 months expire
○​ If security is furnished by defendant/ warrant amount paid
○​ Serious illness
○​ Subsistence allowance not paid
○​ Request of applicant (plaintiff)
●​ Wrongful arrest - Sec.95
○​ Arrest on insufficient grounds - cause of action to defendant agsint plaintiff -
compensation of rs.50k max
○​ Def can also sue state or Plaintiff
●​ Who are not arrested -
○​ Defendant is woman in money suits - sec 56
○​ Minor
○​ Suit in immovable property dispute
○​ Defendant is member of legislature or committee (sec.135A)

46
 UNIT - 4: Interlocutory Applications

○​ If Def is judicial officer (s.135)

○​ Cases -
■​ Chelsea Mills vs. Chorus Girl Inc AIR 1991 Del 129.
■​ Nidhi Dhawan vs. Sunil Dhawan 1996 AllHC 4973 (Del).

Attachment before judgement - Order XXXVIII R.5-13 - 20th April 2021

Modes of attachment of property Rule 7:

●​ As in order 21 r.43 to 54:
○​ Actual seizure
○​ Appointing custodian
○​ Affixture of warrant on property
○​ Probation order
○​ Garnishee order
●​ Order to employer to withhold salary
Property which cannot be attached: sec.60
●​ All saleable property
●​ Movable and immovable - belonging of defendant
●​ In own name or other name on theirbehalf
●​ Attachable
Exceptions:

●​ 1/3rd of the defendant’s salary should not be attached

●​ Welfare proceedings

47
 UNIT - 4: Interlocutory Applications

Withdrawal / removal of attachment: rule 9

●​ If defendant furnishes security
●​ Suit dismissed
Rule 11: not important

Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rule 1 to 5

Meaning of injunction:
●​ Order of judicial authority - person to do or refrain from doing a particular act
Kinds:
●​ Mandatory and prohibitory
○​ Mandatory - order of judicial authority to do a particular act
○​ Prohibitory - order not to do a particular act
●​ Perpetual (specific relief act) & temporary/interim (CPC Order 39)
○​ Perpetual mandatory example - maintenance
○​ Perpetual prohibitory example -
○​ Temporary mandatory - pay interim amount as maintenance till di
●​ Ad interim injunction: granted till application for temporary injunction heard and decided
○​ Till IA is heard and decided
○​ The day IA is decided, the ad interim injunction will come to an end
Stay and Injunction:
●​ Not the same
●​ Technical differences between both
●​ Stay - suspension of judicial proceedings, by court suo motu or higher court to lower
court.
●​ Stay is for court || Injunction is for persons
●​ Injunction - order to do or refrain from particular act, by court to person
Who can apply for temporary injunction:
●​ P or D - Rule 1a
●​ Ex: Def in declaratory suits, eviction, etc
Against whom can temporary injunction be obtained:
●​ Party to suit only - not third person/stranger to suit
●​ Not agsint court
Grounds Rule 1,2 and section 151:
●​ Property in dispute
○​ In danger of being wasted/damaged/alienated/wrongfully sold
○​ Defendant threatens/intends to remove/dispoe property to defraud creditors
○​ Defendant threatens to dispossess plaintiff from property or cause injury to
plaintiff in relation to peroty
○​ Defendant about to commit breach of contract or other injury against plaintiff
○​ Required in interest of justice - sec.94(c){supplemental proceedings} , sec.151

48
 UNIT - 4: Interlocutory Applications

3 Principles / 3-pillar test for temporary injunction:

●​ Prima facie case
○​ Does not have to prove the entire case
○​ Court to be satisfied - bona fide legal dispute - not to prove entire case
○​ Kashinath Samstahn vs. Shrimad Sudhindra tirthaswamy
●​ Irreparable injury to be suffered if injunction not granted
○​ If injury not granted - applicant suffers from irreparable loss or injury - cannot be
adequately compensated in money
○​ American cyanamid co. vs. ethicon ltd 1975 - principle
○​ Best sellers retail vs. aditya birla 2012 SC
●​ Balance of convenience
○​ If injunction not granted - applicant put to greater inconvenience - compared to
inconvenience of opposite party if injunction granted
○​ Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. vs Coca Cola AIR 1995
Procedure of TI:

49
 UNIT - 4: Interlocutory Applications

Abatement of Suit: Death, Insolvency of Party, Withdrawal,

Compromise of Suit

Abatement: Order 22
●​ Abatement: creation, assignment, devolution of interest pendente lite
●​ Suits gets disposed off not on merits, but due to certain other factor/events
●​ Case cannot be continued
●​ Suit is not going to be heard
Death of Party (Rule 1 to 6, 10A).
●​ If right to sue not to survive on death of party - suit abates
○​ Pre-emption suit abates on plaintiff’s death
○​ Injunction suit abates on defendant’s death
○​ Melapurath Sankunnu vs. Gopalakutty Nair AIR 1986
●​ If right to sue survives on death - suit continues against LR of deceased party (P/D) - R1
○​ Girijanandini vs. Bijendra Narain AIR 1967
○​ Defendant dies:
■​ P’s job to identify the LR, file IA
■​ If sole defendant dies - right against def continues - LR of deceased def to
be added as party by plaintiff within 90 days from death - if no application
by plaintiff in time, suit abates (R1).

50
 UNIT - 4: Interlocutory Applications

■​ If several defendants - one dies, right against def continues - LR of

deceased def to be added by P in 90 days - if not application in time, suit
against that LR abates, continues against other defs (R2).
○​ Plaintiff dies:
■​ Sole P dies - right to sue continues - suit continued by LR by application
to court within 90 days from death - if no application in time by LR, suit
abates.
■​ Several Ps, one dies - rt. To sue continues - suit continued by other Ps and
LR, if LR applies in 90 days - id no application in time by LR then suit
abates
●​ If no LRs:
○​ No LR of Party dead - on application of opposite party, court appoints reciever to
appoint receiver to represent estate of deceased
●​ Dispute about LR- court to decide
●​ Duty of pleader/advocate (R.10A) - inform court about death of rep party
●​ Effect of abatement (R9) - abated by failure of P (application to bring LR on record in
time) - fresh suit barred - appln to set aside abatement
○​ S.11 not applicable here, but its barred under O.22_R.9

Assignment of Interest (R10)

Withdrawal and Compromise Order 23

51
UNIT - 4: Interlocutory Applications

52
UNIT - 4: Interlocutory Applications

53
 UNIT - 6 SPECIAL SUITS

UNIT - 6 : SPECIAL SUITS

(Mortgage Suits as well)

Party is special or nature of suit is special (not right in personam ideally) -- something additional
in the procedure in the suit (90% procedure will be identical to normal civil suits and the 10%
will be different/additional)

Suit Against Govt. -- Section 79-82 r/w [Link]

●​ BBMP, RBI, HAL, BHEL, State Govt, SIB, SBI, etc
●​ Cause Title -- Plaint filed under s.26 r/w s.79 and Order 27 and Order 7 Rule (1)
●​ Against Govt itself or public officer (w.r.t act done in official capacity)
●​ Procedure:
○​ Title of Suit - Sec.79: Central Govt - UoI; State Govt - State of ________; Public
Officer + Govt (Department of the Public Officer)
■​ Ex: ABC vs. (Name of Chairman of SAIL) and SAIL
○​ Notice to Govt - Sec.80:
■​ Mandatory 2 months notice to govt before filing suit
■​ Object - Sufficient time, opportunity to Govt to resolve dispute with P
before litigation.
●​ State of Punjab vs. M/s Geeta Iron and Brass Works Ltd 1978
(only relevant for theory || no problem based question)
■​ Importance:
●​ Suit without notice (or even prior to 2 months) - rejection of plaint
u/O7R11 (barred by any law - sec.80 CPC)
●​ Rejected on technical grounds - decision of the court would not
amount to res judicata -- P can always go back and file a fresh case
○​ Bihari Choudhary vs State of Bihar 1984
○​ Exception:
■​ Urgent relief with leave of court -- have to tell the court as to what might
happen if 2 month wait is applicable

54
 UNIT - 6 SPECIAL SUITS

●​ Harish Chandra Pvt Ltd vs Corp Bank

■​ X
○​ Contents of Notice:
■​ Names, description, address of parties
■​ Cause of action
■​ Relief Claimed
■​ Defecet (mistakes) in content of notice -- not a ground for dismissal

●​

Suit Against Public Officer:

●​

Limitation:

●​ (not
barred - 2 months to be added) s.80CPC r/w s.12 Limitation Act
●​ Period of Mandatory notice (2 months) to be excluded (added) from the limitation period

55
 UNIT - 6 SPECIAL SUITS

------------------------------ u1,4

56
UNIT - 6 SPECIAL SUITS

57
UNIT - 6 SPECIAL SUITS

58
 UNIT - 7 Appeals revision and review

UNIT - 7 Appeals revision and review

59
UNIT - 7 Appeals revision and review

60
UNIT - 7 Appeals revision and review

61
UNIT - 7 Appeals revision and review

62
UNIT - 7 Appeals revision and review

63
UNIT - 7 Appeals revision and review

64
UNIT - 7 Appeals revision and review

65
LIMITATION ACT

LIMITATION ACT

66
 LIMITATION ACT

Bars remedy is v imp and the case as well - indirect theory question

67
 LIMITATION ACT

1987 case is a precedent so is important

(point 4 ) “when right to sue accrues”

68
 LIMITATION ACT

Starts in 2015 - ends in (explain with the line in italics - very important)

69