Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Unit 2: Pleadings & Trial — Simple & Exam-Ready Notes

UNIT 2: PLEADINGS & TRIAL

2.1 Plaint
A plaint is the first pleading of the plaintiff, presented to start a civil suit (also covered as part of Unit 1). Its full
procedure includes:
• Particulars (Order VII Rule 1) – name/place/description of parties, facts constituting the cause of action
and when it arose, facts showing jurisdiction, relief claimed, and valuation.
• Documents (Order VII Rule 14) – documents relied on by the plaintiff must be filed with the plaint, or
leave of the court must be obtained to produce them later.
• Return of plaint (Order VII Rule 10) – if the court finds it lacks jurisdiction, the plaint is returned for
presentation to the proper court, not rejected.
• Rejection of plaint (Order VII Rule 11) – rejected if it discloses no cause of action, is undervalued,
insufficiently stamped, or barred by law.
• Amendment of plaint (Order VI Rule 17) – the court may allow amendments necessary to determine
the real question in controversy, generally not after trial has begun unless due diligence is shown.

Illustration
If, after filing a suit for possession, A realises he also needs to add a prayer for mesne profits, he can apply
under Order VI Rule 17 to amend the plaint and add this relief, provided trial has not yet begun.

Case Law: Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi (2006)

The Supreme Court held that Order VI Rule 17 has two parts — the first is discretionary, the second
mandatory once satisfied. Courts should allow amendments needed to determine the real question in dispute,
as long as they do not cause injustice that costs cannot compensate.

2.2 Written Statement

A written statement is the defendant's formal reply to the plaint, governed by Order VIII.
• Time limit (Rule 1) – must be filed within 30 days of summons, extendable up to 90 days for reasons
recorded in writing.
• New facts (Rule 2) – the defendant must raise all grounds of defence and new facts (e.g., limitation,
fraud) specifically.
• Denial must be specific (Rules 3-5) – a vague or evasive denial is not enough; if a fact is not
specifically denied, it is deemed admitted.
• Set-off (Rule 6) – if the defendant has a money claim against the plaintiff, of an ascertained sum,
arising in the same transaction or otherwise, it may be claimed as a set-off.
• Counter-claim (Rule 6-A to 6-G) – the defendant may set up an independent claim against the plaintiff,
treated almost like a cross-suit within the same proceeding.

Illustration
A sues B for Rs. 2,00,000 on a loan. B, in his written statement, does not deny taking the loan but is silent on
the amount — that amount is deemed admitted. B also claims A owes him Rs. 50,000 from an unrelated bill
— B can claim this as a set-off, reducing his liability to Rs. 1,50,000.
 Case Law: Kailash v. Nanhku (2005)
The Supreme Court held that the 90-day outer limit under Order VIII Rule 1 for filing a written statement is
directory, not mandatory — courts retain the discretion, in truly exceptional cases, to accept a written
statement filed beyond that period.

2.3 Service of Summons

A summons is the court's notice to the defendant to appear and answer the claim (Order V). Modes of
service include:
• Personal/direct service – handed to the defendant or his authorised agent, who signs an
acknowledgment.
• Service by court officer, registered post, or approved courier (Rule 9, 9-A) – common in practice
today.
• Substituted service (Rule 20) – used when the defendant evades service; by affixing a copy at the
defendant's residence/place of business and, if the court so orders, by publication in a newspaper.
• Service on agent, or on an adult member of the family (Rules 12-15), where the defendant cannot
be found personally.
• Service outside India (Rule 25/26) – through the political/diplomatic channel or as the court directs.

Illustration
If a process server visits B's house twice and B is reported to be deliberately avoiding service, the court can
order substituted service — a copy of the summons is affixed on B's door, and a notice may also be published
in a local newspaper.

Case Law: Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005)

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1999/2002 CPC amendments, including service of
summons through approved private couriers, fax, and email in addition to traditional modes, to speed up civil
litigation.

2.4 Appearance and Non-Appearance of Parties

Order IX deals with what happens when parties do or do not appear on the date fixed for hearing.
• Both parties present – suit proceeds to hearing.
• Plaintiff absent, defendant present (Rule 8) – suit may be dismissed; if the defendant admits no part
of the claim, the suit is dismissed.
• Defendant absent, plaintiff present (Rule 6) – if summons was duly served, court may proceed ex
parte and pass an ex parte decree.
• Both parties absent (Rule 3) – suit is dismissed for default.
• Setting aside dismissal (Rule 4) or ex parte decree (Rule 13) – the absent party may apply to have
the order/decree set aside on showing summons was not duly served or there was "sufficient cause" for
non-appearance.

Illustration
B fails to appear on the hearing date despite proper service. The court decrees the suit ex parte in A's favour.
If B later shows he missed the date because he was hospitalised (a sufficient cause), he can apply under
Order IX Rule 13 to have the ex parte decree set aside.

Case Law: G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada (2000)

The Supreme Court held that "sufficient cause" under Order IX Rule 13 is an elastic expression that must be
liberally construed to do substantial justice, focusing only on the reason for absence on the date in question.
2.5 Discovery, Inspection and Production of Documents
Order XI allows parties to obtain facts and documents from each other before trial, to narrow down the real
disputes and avoid surprise:
• Interrogatories (Rules 1-11) – written questions delivered, with the court's leave, to the opposite party,
who must answer them on affidavit; helps obtain admissions and clarify the case.
• Discovery of documents (Rule 12) – a party may apply for an order directing the other side to
disclose, on affidavit, the documents in their possession relevant to the suit.
• Inspection of documents (Rules 15-19) – once documents are disclosed, the other party may inspect
and take copies of them.
• Consequences of non-compliance (Rule 21) – failure to answer interrogatories or allow
discovery/inspection can lead to the suit being dismissed (if plaintiff defaults) or the defence being struck
out (if defendant defaults).

Illustration
In a suit for breach of contract, A can seek leave to deliver interrogatories to B asking specific questions about
disputed facts, and can also apply for discovery of B's internal correspondence relevant to the contract, to
prepare for trial without last-minute surprises.

Case Law: M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur (1972)

The Supreme Court laid down the twin tests for ordering discovery and production of documents under Order
XI — the documents must be relevant to the matter in controversy, and discovery must be necessary either
for disposing fairly of the case or for saving costs.

2.6 Admission
Order XII deals with admissions of case and documents, which help shorten trials:
• Notice to admit facts (Rule 1-2) – either party may call upon the other to admit certain facts, saving the
cost of proving them.
• Notice to admit documents (Rule 3) – documents not admitted without reasonable cause may attract
the cost of formal proof against the party refusing.
• Admission by pleadings or otherwise – if a party admits the opposite party's case (fully or partly),
through pleadings, statements, or documents.
• Judgment on admission (Rule 6) – where facts are clearly admitted, the court may pass judgment at
once, without waiting for the full trial.

Illustration
In a suit for recovery of dues, B's own written statement and prior letters clearly admit the debt amount. A can
apply under Order XII Rule 6 for the court to pass a decree straightaway on this admission, without a full trial.

Case Law: Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India (2000)
The Supreme Court held that the object of Order XII Rule 6 is to give a party a speedy judgment wherever the
other side has made a plain, unambiguous admission of the claim, whether in pleadings, correspondence, or
otherwise.

2.7 Production, Impounding and Returning of Documents; Transfer of Suits,

Decree and Judgment
Documents (Order XIII):
• Production – documentary evidence must generally be produced at or before the first hearing (Rule 1).
 • Admission and marking as exhibits (Rules 4-6) – admitted documents are endorsed and made part
of the record.
• Impounding (Rule 8) – the court may impound a document (e.g., one insufficiently stamped) and send
it for adjudication under stamp law.
• Return of documents (Rule 9) – once the suit ends, original documents may be returned to the party
who produced them, retaining certified copies on file.
Transfer of Suits (Sections 22-25):
• A suit may be transferred from one competent court to another for reasons like balance of convenience,
apprehension of an unfair trial, or the interest of justice (Secs. 22-24), or by the Supreme Court between
High Courts of different states (Sec. 25).
Judgment and Decree (Order XX) – after the hearing, the court pronounces judgment (Sec. 2(9)) stating the
reasons; a formal decree (Sec. 2(2)) is then drawn up giving effect to the judgment.

Illustration
If a litigant genuinely fears she will not get a fair hearing in a small-town court because of local influence of
the opposite party, she may apply to the District Court/High Court for the suit to be transferred to a
neighbouring court under Section 24.

Case Law: Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust (2008)

The Supreme Court laid down illustrative grounds for transferring a suit under Sections 24-25 — balance of
convenience, apprehension of an unfair trial, and the interest of justice — while cautioning that this discretion
must be exercised with care and is not to be used routinely.

2.8 Remand and Restitution

Remand (Order XLI Rule 23) – if the appellate court reverses a trial court's decree that had disposed of the
suit on a preliminary point (without deciding all issues), it can send the case back (remand) to the trial court to
decide the remaining issues and try the suit afresh.
Restitution (Section 144) – if a decree is varied or reversed on appeal, the trial court must restore the
parties, as far as possible, to the position they would have been in had the erroneous decree never been
passed — including refund of money, return of property, and payment of interest/compensation.

Illustration
A obtains a decree against B and takes possession of B's land in execution. On appeal, the decree is
reversed. B is now entitled to restitution — the land must be restored to him, and if A collected any profits
from it meanwhile, A may have to account for those too.

Case Law: Binayak Swain v. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi (1966)

The Supreme Court held that the obligation to make restitution arises automatically the moment a decree is
reversed or varied, and Section 144 merely recognises this equitable principle — a party cannot be allowed to
keep the benefit of an erroneous decree.

2.9 Appeals: First Appeal, Second Appeal, Appeals from Orders, Appeals to
Supreme Court
• First Appeal (Sec. 96, Order XLI) – lies from a decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction, to its
immediate superior court; the appellate court can re-examine both facts and law.
• Second Appeal (Sec. 100, Order XLII) – lies to the High Court from a decree passed in a first appeal,
but only on a substantial question of law, which the High Court must formulate.
• Appeals from Orders (Sec. 104, Order XLIII) – only certain orders specified by the Code (e.g., an
order rejecting a plaint, refusing to set aside an ex parte decree) are appealable; other orders are not.
 • Appeals to the Supreme Court (Sec. 109, Order XLV) – lies from a High Court judgment/decree in a
civil matter, usually where the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance that, in
the Supreme Court's opinion, needs to be decided by it.

Illustration
After losing in the trial court and again in the first appeal before the District Court, a party can approach the
High Court in second appeal — but only if the case genuinely raises a substantial, debatable question of law,
not merely a dispute over facts already settled by the lower courts.

Case Law: Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001)

The Supreme Court explained that a "substantial question of law" under Section 100 must directly and
substantially affect the rights of the parties and must not already be settled by the highest court; the High
Court must formulate this question before hearing a second appeal, and cannot re-appreciate evidence as if it
were a first appeal.

2.10 Reference, Review and Revision

Reference (Sec. 113, Order XLVI) – a subordinate court, doubtful about a question of law, may state a case
and refer it to the High Court for its opinion, instead of deciding it itself.
Review (Sec. 114, Order XLVII) – the same court that passed a decree/order may be asked to review its
own decision, but only on limited grounds: discovery of new and important evidence, a mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.
Revision (Sec. 115) – the High Court may call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate court where
no appeal lies, to check that the subordinate court did not act (i) without jurisdiction, (ii) with a failure to
exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or (iii) with material irregularity/illegality in exercising its jurisdiction. Revision
is supervisory, not a fresh hearing on merits.

Illustration
If a trial court, deciding an application, overlooks a crucial and clearly dated document already on record, the
aggrieved party may seek a review pointing out this apparent error. But if a Munsif Court wrongly assumes
jurisdiction over a suit it has no power to try, the High Court may correct this through revision, even though
no appeal lies against that order.

Case Law: Review: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979)
The Supreme Court held that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and is strictly confined to Order
XLVII Rule 1 — an error must be self-evident, not one that needs to be established by a long process of
reasoning.

Case Law: Revision: Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon (1964)
The Supreme Court gave a wide meaning to "case decided" under Section 115, holding that even an
interlocutory order deciding an important question (like maintainability of a suit) can be revised by the High
Court, so long as the subordinate court's jurisdictional error is shown.

Note: These are simplified, exam-oriented notes based on the provisions of the CPC, 1908. For detailed reading, refer to the bare Act
and standard commentaries.