FACULTY OF LAW

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

“END SEMESTER EXAMINATIONS”

CIVIL CODE PROCEDURE-II

SUBMITTED TO –

DR. EAKRAMUDDIN

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

FACULTY OF LAW

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

BY-

SHASHWAT PATHAK

B.A. L.L.B. (HONS.) [S.F.]

SEMESTER VIII, 4TH YEAR

STUDENT ID: 20165313

 ROLL. NO.: 16BLW069

ENROLMENT NO.: 16-5187

Unit- I

Ques.1 Define Pleading. What are the essentials of Pleading? On what stage pleading
can be amended.

Ans.1 INTRODUCTION- The present day system of pleadings in our country is based on
the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 supplemented from time to time by rules in
that behalf by High Courts of the States. There are rules of the Supreme Court and rules by
special enactments as well.

For one, words ‘plaints’ and ‘complaints’ are nearly synonymous. In both, the expression of
grievance is predominant. Verily, when a suitor files a statement of grievance he is the
plaintiff and he files a ‘complaint’ containing allegations and claims remedy. As days passed,
we have taken up the word ‘Plaint’ for the Civil Court and the word ‘Complaint’ for the
Criminal Court.

PLEADING- Order 6, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) defines ‘pleading’. It means
either a Plaint or a Written Statement. With the passing of time written pleadings supplanted
archaic oral pleadings. When reduced to writing the scope of confusion, for obvious reasons,
was made narrower.

OBJECTIVE - In this we find the object of a pleading which aims at ascertaining precisely
the points for contention of the parties to a suit. The rules of pleading and other ancillary
rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure have one main object in view. It is to find out
and narrow down the controversy between the parties. The function of Pleadings :

(1) is to give fair notice of the case which has to be met so that the opposing party may
direct his evidence to the issue disclosed by them.
(2) Procedural law is intended to facilitate not to obstruct the course of substantive
justice.

Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give each side intimation of the
case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue
between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular
causes of action must take (Ganesh Trading v. Motiram, AIR 1970 SC 480).

FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF PLEADING –

The fundamental rule of pleadings is contained in provisions of O. 6, R. 2 of C.P.C. which

enjoins :

(1) “Every pleading shall contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts
on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not
the evidence by which they are to be proved.
(2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered
consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is conveniently, contained in a separate
paragraph.
(3) Dates,sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in
words.”

The Pleading shall contain -

(i) facts only, then again, material facts;
(ii) not law;
(iii) not evidence; and
(iv) immaterial facts to be discarded.
(v) deficiency in pleading.

(i) Material facts: A pleadings shall contain only material facts. Material facts are the
entirety of facts which would be necessary to prove to succeed in the suit. Any fact which is
not material should be avoided. Slackness in pleadings is unfair both to the court in which
they are filed and also to the litigants. Material facts should be pleaded concisely. There is
hardly any scope for showing literary genius in a pleading.

 Order 6, R. 2, C.P.C. should be read with O. 6, R. 4(c). When commencing a suit,

the plaintiff is required to state only material facts, but such facts must constitute his
cause of action as well.
  Absence of material facts will put the party to discomfiture, for no amount of
evidence can be taken into consideration or regarded as sufficient in proof of any
fact if specific mention of it is not made in the pleadings. Therefore, if a party omits
to state a material fact, he will not be allowed to give evidence of the fact at the trial
unless the pleading is amended under O. 6, R. 17, C.P.C.
 The rule is based mainly on principles that no party should be prejudiced by change
in the case introduced by this method. No relief can be granted on facts and
documents not disclosed in the plaint.
 It is often noticed that during the trial of a suit, some fact is sought to be introduced in
evidence which does not find mention in the plaint or in the written statement, as the
case may be. Then follows a heated parley when the court intervenes and rejects any
attempt of introduction of any new fact.
 To avoid discomfiture, the pleading should be carefully drafted not to miss any
material fact which may subsequently be found to be so material as to decide the fate
of the case this or that way.

(ii) Not law- In a pleading, there is no scope of pleading a provision of law or conclusion of
law. It is the intention of the framers of the Code that a pleading should state facts, and the
position as in law shall be inferred if such facts are capable of raising any legal inference.
 The pleading should present facts in such a way that those would irresistibly and
spontaneously draw a legal inference.
 Legal effects are not to be stated, the duty of a pleader is to set out the facts upon
which he relies and not the legal inference to be drawn from them. Likewise the
conclusion of law or a mixed question of law and fact should not be pleaded.

(iii) Not evidence: In like manner evidence has to be avoided in pleadings. We have noticed
the wording of the rule of O. 6, R. 2 to wit, a statement in a concise form of the material facts
on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be but not the
evidence by which they are to be proved.A pleading should not contain facts which are
merely evidence to prove the material facts.

(iv) Immaterial facts to be discarded: Unnecessary details are the facts which are not
material and, therefore, should be discarded.
AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS-
Amendment of pleadings is basically for the purpose of bringing about final adjudication in a
suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is in the interest of justice that a suit shall be
decided on all points of controversy and accordingly, it is needed that the party shall be
allowed to alter or amend their pleadings during the pendency of the suit. There can be a
situation where there is change of circumstances in the course of pendency of a proceeding
and if a matter in issue arises upon such change of circumstance, then amendment becomes
necessary.

 Amendment of pleadings is provided under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, which reads as under - the Court may allow the amendment at any
stage of the proceedings and for such purpose it may impose conditions i.e. in the
form of cost or any other condition. The Court has been given discretion in this regard
and the mandatory guidelines upon the Court as well as upon the party seeking
amendment is that they shall make only such amendments which are necessary for
determination of real controversy between the parties to the suit.
 At the same time, the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 puts a mandate upon the Court not
to allow such amendment after the trail has begun (i.e. if issues have been settled), if
its finds that the party could have raised the pleadings by due diligence at an earlier
point of time.
 However, the Proviso need not be given a very rigid effect in all cases as the same is
subject to the discretion of the Court. The main object of the legislation is to enable
the Court to allow amendment at any stage. The purpose of the Proviso cannot do
away with the intent of the legislation. Thus, if an application for amendment of
pleadings has been filed after trial has begun, the Court will normally be tilted against
the applicant, if it could be raised by due diligence at any earlier stage of proceedings.
But in proper cases if the point to be amended is very essential to the suit, the Court
may, in the interest of justice and equity, allow the amendment on such conditions as
the Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
  It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Case, that by the 2002
Amendment, which added the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17, the burden of proof has
been shifted upon the applicant who makes the application for amendment after the
trail has commenced, to prove that despite due diligence he could not have raised the
issue before the commencement of trail. This is for the purpose of preventing
frivolous application to delay the proceedings.

GUIDELINES FOR AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS -

 Cause of action - in a suit cannot be altered by amendment of pleadings. The cause of

action will not be allowed to be substituted in totality and the reason being that the
cause of action is the very basis of a suit. If a new/distinct cause of action is there, the
parties are always free to go to the Court with such cause of action in an independent
suit. But there can be cases where the cause of action has got further aggravated by
any further violation or some continuing cause of action which can be joined in the
present suit due to subsequent change of circumstances. In such cases, the Court in its
discretion is free to allow the amendment as that would not be a case of substitution of
cause of action.
 Matter in Issue - The Amendment of pleadings shall be allowed to bring or to clarify
all matter in issue before the Court. The matter in issue is essential for the
determination of the suit and therefore amendment can be made. Similarly, relief also
can be amended. In such cases, if the amendment is not allowed, the bar of
res judicata or as the case may be, the bar of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 may apply. Therefore, the Court should try to bring a balance
between the injustice that might be caused to the applicant in case of refusal to grant
relief and at the same time, in case of allowing the application, the requirement of
injustice caused to the other party in the present suit.
 Matter of Right -If a right has already accrued in pleadings to the opposite party, then
the Court shall normally be reluctant to allow the Amendment of pleadings. However,
in such cases, if the loss that will be caused to the other party can be adequately
compensated for by cost then amendment shall be allowed. 
 Requirement- When the court hears the application for Amendment of pleadings it
does not go into the merits of the case. While considering the prayer for amendment
of the pleadings, the Court cannot go into the issue of merits vis-à-vis maintainability
 of the suit, but can consider only whether the amendment is necessary to determine
the real controversy between the parties.
 Time Limitation -If there is an undue delay in the filing of the application for
amendment, without there being sufficient cause shown to condone the delay, then the
Court may normally not allow the amendment.
 Change of law- The law can be a change of substantive law either prospective or
retrospective. If it is a prospective change then it normally not effect cause of action
and matter in issue in the pending suit and therefore, amendment is not needed.
Whereas it is a retrospective change, amendment might be needed and shall be
allowed. If it is a change of procedural law then normally pleadings will not be
allowed to be amended but the court shall itself take note of the change of procedural
law. 

Further, Order VI rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 casts a duty on the party to
carry out the amendment, if allowed by the Court, within the time limited for the said purpose
by the order and if no time is thereby stated, then within 14 days from the date of the order.

In case the party fails to carry out amendment within the said period, he shall not be
permitted to carry out the amendment after the expiration of time limited, unless the time is
further extended by the Court.

CONCLUSION –

 The rules of pleading and other ancillary rules contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure have one main object in view. It is to find out and narrow down
controversy between the parties. The pleadings are not to be considered as
constituting a game of skill between the advocates. They ought to be so framed as not
only to assist the party in the statement of his case but the court in its investigation of
the truth between the litigants.
 And in view of the aforesaid, it can be concluded that the amendment of pleadings
cannot be claimed by the party as a matter of right nor can be denied by the Court
arbitrarily. It may be duly noted that if any of the important points is omitted from
being given in the reply, it would be suicidal as there is a limited provision for
amendment of pleadings as provided in Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, and also the same
cannot be raised in the Affidavit-in-Evidence at the time of leading of evidence
 However, the discretion to be exercised by the Court is guided by the principles
mentioned hereinabove and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
 Thus, rational behind the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 can be summarized as "Court shall allow  application of amendment
if granting of an amendment  really sub serves ultimate cause of justice and
avoids  further litigation".
 Unit- II

Ques. 2 What are the consequences of Appearance and Non Appearance of Parties to a
Suit?

INTRODUCTION: The provisions of the code of Civil Procedure are based on a

general principle that, as far as possible, no proceeding in a court of law should be conducted
to the detriment of any party in his absence. Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) deals with issues as regards the appearance of parties
to the suit and consequences apropos their non-appearance and It also provides a remedy for
setting aside an order of dismissal of the suit as also the setting aside of an ex-parte
decree passed against the defendant. There are 14 Rules in total which deal with the
appearance of the parties and consequences of non-appearance.

 Appearance and non-appearance of parties during trial before the court is a crucial issue to
resolve civil dispute. Because, mere appearance or non-appearance can determine the
ultimate result of a civil litigation. Also, it is the duty of the concern party to the aware of his
rights, show vigilance towards the court and establish his/her claim by taking proper
measures. In law, appearance means appearance in person or through advocate for conducting
a case. However, appearance by a pleader within the meaning of CPC does not mean mere
presence in the court, it means “appearance by a pleader” duly instructed and able to answer
all material questions.

(1) Order IX, Rule 1 of the Code stipulates that parties to a suit are to present
themselves before the court on the date fixed in the summons issued by the court to
the defendant; summons are issued, firstly, to secure the appearance of the defendant
(in person or through pleader) and, secondly, to enable the defendant to answer the
claim of the plaintiff. the parties shall be in attendance at the court-house in person or
by their respective pleaders, and the suit shall then be heard unless the hearing is
adjourned to a future day fixed by the court.
 In MANIBHAI VS. AMBALAL, it was held that the parties must remain present before the
Court when the matter is called out. The court is not bound to wait for any party. The court
would be justified in disposing of the matter in absence of the party. But when the party
appears and gives satisfactory explanation for not remaining present, the court should take a
lenient view especially when the application for restoration or setting aside ex-parte decree is
made on the same day. The primary concern of the court should be to dispose of the cases
before it on merits so as to see that substantial justice is done. Disposing of the cases on
technicalities especially the absence of a party at a time when the suit is called out, may lead
to considerable injustice. Therefore, the court must consider the application for restoration
especially when it is made soon after the dismissal order in a practical and pragmatic manner
so as to see that the ends of justice are not defeated.

WHERE SUMMONS IS NOT SERVED:

It is a fundamental rule of the law of procedure that a party must have a fair and reasonable
opportunity to represent his case. And for that purpose, he must have a notice of the legal
proceedings initiated against him. The service of summons on the defendant is, therefore, a
condition precedent to a fair trial. If the summons is not served on the defendant or it does not
give him sufficient time to represent his case effectively, no decree can be passed against
him.
(2) Order IX, Rule 2 of the Code states that, where the plaintiff fails to pay the court-fee
or postal charges chargeable for the service of summons to the defendant or fails to
present the copies of the plaint as required by Order VII, Rule 9 of the Code, then, the
suit of the plaintiff can be dismissed, regards being had to the discretion of the court.
 Provided that no such order shall be made, if, notwithstanding such failure the defendant
attends in person (or by agent when he is allowed to appear by agent) on the day fixed for
him to appear and answer.
Rule 2 of Order 9 enacts that the suit may be dismissed where the summons is not served on
the plaintiff’s failure to pay costs for service of summons to defendant or to present copies of
the plaint. No such order, however, can be passed in spite of such failure by the plaintiff if the
defendant appears in person or by his authorized agent on the day fixed for him to appear.
The plaintiff may file a fresh suit even after the dismissal of the suit under Rule 2 in respect
of the same cause of action or may apply for an order to set aside such dismissal. And if the
court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for such failure, the court shall set aside such
order of dismissal and shall fix a day for proceeding with the trial.
An appeal cannot be preferred against an order passed by the court dismissing the suit under
Order IX, Rule 2 of the Code; only a revision under Section 115 of the Code can be preferred
against such an order dismissing the suit.

WHERE NEITHER PARTY APPEARS:

(3) Order IX, Rule 3 of the Code further states that, where on the date fixed for the
hearing of the suit, neither of the parties to the suit appears, then, the suit can be
dismissed.

In DAMU VS. VAKRYA, in a suit, A sues B and C. A and C do not appear when the suit is
called on for hearing, but B appears. The court makes an order dismissing the suit. As
between A and B the order is one under Rule 8, so as to attract the applicability of Rule 9.
But as between A and C, the order is one under the present rule, so that Rule 4 applies and
not Rule 9.Where the trial court, in its order dismissing the suit for default, merely referred to
the plaintiff’s absence and not to the defendant’s absence, the order must be construed to be
one under Order 9, Rule 3. The court cannot dismiss the suit in total merely to penalize the
plaintiff for his absence. Rules of procedure are to be so construed as to advance and not
defeat the remedy. Mere non-mentioning in the order of absence of either party would not
take it out of the purview of Rule-3.  Unless a date has been fixed for the appearance of the
defendant and neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing on the day fixed,
this rule will not apply. This was held in RAM RAMBIJAYA VS. SAKALPAT TWEARY.
.
Dismissal under this rule does not amount to a decree and no appeal as such lies from it; the
plaintiff can either bring a fresh suit or can apply under Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code to set
aside the dismissal.  

(4) Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code stipulates that, when a suit is dismissed under Order
IX, Rule 2, or, Order IX, Rule 3, of the Code, then, a fresh suit on the same cause of
action is not barred if within limitation. An application for restoration of suit under
Order IX, Rule 4 is to be preferred within 30 days of dismissal of the suit. Once the
application for setting aside the dismissal is allowed, the defendant is entitled to get
notice of restoration and the date of further hearing; the requirement of notice to the
defendant is mandatory (and not directory) and non-service of notice is sufficient
enough to get the decree set aside.
 (5) Order IX, Rule 5 of the Code states that, a suit shall be dismissed where the plaintiff
after the return of summons being not served, fails to apply for fresh summons within
a period of 7 (seven) days reckoning from the date on which the earlier summons
were returned as un-served.
However, the court shall not dismiss the suit, if the plaintiff satisfies the court that:
(a) despite best endeavours, the plaintiff failed to discover the residence of the defendant;
(b) defendant is avoiding the service of process; and/or,
(c) there is sufficient cause favouring the plaintiff to pray for the extension of the time for the
service of summons upon the defendant.
Where a suit is dismissed under Order IX, Rule 5 of the Code, the plaintiff is not prevented
from bringing a fresh suit.
 
Where it is not proved that the summons is duly served on the defendant, the court will direct
a fresh summons to be issued and to be served on the defendant.
Where it is proved that the summons is duly served on the defendant but there was not
sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer on the day fixed in the summons, the court
shall postpone the hearing of the suit to a future day and give notice of such day to the
defendant.
Where the summons is not duly served or is not served in sufficient time due to the plaintiff’s
default, the court shall order the plaintiff to pay the costs occasioned by such postponement.
In the case of Salem Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Union of India (2005) 6 SCC
344 it was held that the period of 7 (seven) days mentioned in Order IX, Rule 5 of the Code is
merely directory and is not mandatory.

WHERE ONLY PLAINTIFF APPEARS:

(6) Order IX, Rule 6 of the Code provides for the procedure that is to be adopted when
on the first date of hearing of the suit only the plaintiff appears and the defendant does
not appear despite the summons being duly served on the defendant, or, summons
being duly served on the defendant but not within sufficient time, or, when summons
were not duly served. Under Order IX, Rule 6 of the Code, the defendant can be
proceeded against ex parte provided summon were duly served upon him within
sufficient time. 
The Procedure - Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit
is called on for hearing, then –
(a) When summons duly served – If it is proved that the summons was duly served, the
court may make an order that the suit be heard ex- parte;
(b)   When summons not duly served – if it is not proved that the summons was duly
served, the court shall direct a second summons to be issued and served.
(c) When summons served but not in due time- if it is proved that the summons was
served on the defendant, but not in sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer
on the day fixed in the summons, the court shall postpone the hearing of the suit to a
future day to be fixed by the court, and shall direct notice of such day to be given to
the defendant.
(d) Where it is owing to the plaintiff’s default that the summons was not duly served or
was not served in sufficient time, the court shall order the plaintiff to pay the costs
occasioned by the postponement.
In RAFI vs. ABDUL AZIZ (17 Ind Cas 833), it was held that where the date of hearing is
declared a holiday, the court should not proceed ex-parte on the next working day. Fresh
notice should be given. The case was fixed for final hearing on a day which was subsequently
declared to be a holiday. On the next following day, the case was disposed of ex-parte
without the consent of the parties. Disposal was invalid.
WHERE ONLY DEFENDANT APPEARS:
(7)  Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code contemplates a situation where by the case was
proceeded ex parte since the defendant did not appear before the court of law, or,
where the defendant failed to appear before the court of law after filing of the written
statement, but, thereafter the defendant appears before the court of law and assigns
good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the court
directs as to costs or otherwise be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on
the day fixed for his appearance and thereby, prays for the setting aside of the ex
parte order
(1) Adjournment for ex-parte hearing –
(2) later appearance of defendant-
(3) Good cause-
Order IX, Rule 7 empowers Court to allow the defendant to contest on good cause for his
previous non-appearance being shown, when at or before ex-parte hearing the defendant
appears.
In GAVICCI VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA,if the defendant was not present on a
particular date of hearing he has a right to appear on subsequent date of hearing .If the
proceedings had taken place in his absence on a previous date of hearing he has to show
good cause for his absence if he wants to get the proceedings taken by the court in his
absence set aside but if no proceedings were taken by the court it is not necessary for the
defendant to show any good cause or to get the previous order aside.
(8) Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code deals with a situation where by the suit is dismissed in
default, for, only the defendant appears before the court of law and the plaintiff fails
to appear. Under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code, a suit cannot be dismissed for non-
appearance of the plaintiff if: (a) the defendant admits the whole of the claim of the
plaintiff; or, (b) the defendant admits the claim of the plaintiff only in part and not in
whole; the court, therefore, shall decree the suit accordingly in favour of the plaintiff,
as against the defendant. Where the suit has been dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8 of
the Code, the plaintiff cannot move in appeal, rather the plaintiff can seek the setting
aside of the order passed under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code by moving an
application before the same court dismissing the suit under Order IX, Rule 9 of the
Code.
(9) Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code states that, where a suit is dismissed either in part, or,
in whole, under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code, then, a fresh suit on the same cause of
action is barred. An application for restoration of the suit under Order IX, Rule 9 is
allowable provided it is made within 30 days of the dismissal of the suit. An appeal
can be preferred under Order XLIII, Rule 1(c) of the Code against an order rejecting
an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code; however, a revision may lie from
against an order restoring a suit dismissed in default. In the case of, Onkar
Singh Angrez Singh AIR 1993 P&H 134,it was categorically held that, non-
appearance of counsel on account of strike call is not a sufficient cause for restoration
of suit dismissed in default within the purport of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code.

Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code states that, if the plaintiff elucidates a “sufficient cause” that
prevented him from appearing before the court, then the court may set aside the order
passed by it under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code. In the case of, Raman Arunachalam
AIR 1936 Ran 335, it was held that, if sufficient cause is shown by the plaintiff for his
non-appearance, then re-opening of the trial of the case is mandatory, but when sufficient
cause is not shown, it is merely directory. Also, in the case of, Madhumilan Syntex
Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2007 SC 1481,it was held that, if the court is satisfied that
there was sufficient cause as regards the non-appearance of the plaintiff, then, the court
may set aside the order of dismissal and fix a day for proceeding with the suit.

(10) Order IX, Rule 10 of the Code provides that where there are more plaintiffs
than one, and one or more of them appear before the court of law on the date fixed,
while the others do not appear, then, the court may permit the suit to be proceeded as
if all the plaintiffs have appeared, or may pass such an order as the it thinks just.

(11) Order IX, Rule 11 of the Code provides that where there are more defendants
than one, and one or more of them appear before the court of law while the others do
not appear, then, the court may permit the suit to be proceeded as if all the defendants
have appeared, or may pass such an order as it thinks just.

(12) Order IX, Rule 12 of the Code states that when the plaintiff and/or the
defendant, who have been ordered to appear before the court of law in person, neither
appear nor show sufficient cause for non-appearance, then, such plaintiff and/or
defendant are to be subjected to all the Rules as provided for in Order IX of the Code
in this behalf, which are as such applicable apropos the plaintiffs and/or the
defendants, who do not appear.

(13) Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code states that an ex parte decree passed against a
defendant can be set aside if the defendant satisfies the court on either of the two
counts: (a) the summons were not duly served on the defendant, or, (b) the defendant
was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from appearing before the court when the
suit was called out for hearing. The court has the discretion to set aside the ex
parte decree passed against the defendant on such terms as to costs or otherwise
(deposit of decretal amount in the court) as the court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of each case (V.K. Industries v. M.P. Electricity Board, AIR 2002 SC
1151)  It is important to note that, the second proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 of the
Code states that, the court shall not set aside an ex parte decree merely on the ground
of irregularity in the service of the summons in a case where the defendant had
sufficient notice of the date of hearing of the suit, and had enough time to appear and
answer the claim of the plaintiff. An application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code
 must be preferred within 30 days from the date of the decree, or, where the summons
were not duly served, within 30 days from the date of the knowledge of the decree.

It is a settled law that for allowing/disallowing an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the
Code, the merits of the case are not to be looked into. In the case of, Kewal Ram Ram
Lubhai AIR 1987 SC 1304, it was held that the court is obliged to set aside an ex
parte decree only against those defendants who have preferred an application under Order IX,
Rule 13, that is to say, if in a suit by X against P, Q and R, an ex parte decree was passed
against the defendants, and thereafter an application was preferred for setting aside the ex
parte decree by P and Q, but not R, on the ground that the summons were not served on them,
then, the ex parte decree can be set aside apropos P and Q, but not R. Further, it is important
to note that, the first proviso to Rule 13 of Order IX categorically states that, if the nature of
decree is such that it cannot be set aside against one such defendant preferring application
under Rule 13 of Order IX alone, then, the ex parte decree must be set aside against all other
defendants also. For example: R sues X and Y on a promissory note, and an ex parte decree is
passed against both the defendants. Thereafter, X alone applies to set aside the decree and
shows sufficient cause for his absence, then, decree must be set aside against Y also, in as
much as the liability of both is based on a common ground.

(14) Order IX, Rule 14 of the Code states that, no ex parte decree can be set aside
without notice to the opposite party. Moreover, in the case of, Mahesh
Yadav v. Rajeshwar Singh (2009) 2 SCC 205, it was held that, an order setting aside
an ex parte decree is a judicial order and therefore, it must be supported by reasons.
No application for setting aside an ex parte decree can be heard and decided without
notice being issued to the opposite party. Thus, the purport of Rule 14 of Order IX of
the Code is that, an application for setting aside an ex parte decree cannot be heard
and decided ex parte.
 Unit- III

Que. 3 Explain the procedure to file a suit against Government.

Sections 79 to 82 and Order 27 of the Code lay down the procedure where suits are brought
by or against the Government or public officers. The provisions, however, prescribe
procedure and machinery and do not deal with rights and liabilities enforceable by or against
the Government. Substantive rights are to be determined in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution.
Article 300 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Indian government to sue any person or
be sued by any person under the name of the Union. Similarly, State governments can sue or
be sued by any legal person under the name of the State.

This provision creates a substantive right of filing a suit on the government by persons who
are aggrieved by an action of the government and vice versa. This is a substantive provision
and its purpose is to only create a right. It does not explain the procedure that needs to be
followed to sue the government.

In ordinary suits, ie, suits between individuals and individuals, notice need not be given to the
defendant by the plaintiff before filing a suit. Section 80 of the Code however, declares that
no suit shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any
act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of
two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of
concerned department of the Government.

Section 79 is a replication of the provision contained in Article 300 of the Constitution. It
states that if a suit has to be filed either by the government or against the government, the title
of the plaintiff and the parties who shall be impleaded as defendant shall be the ‘Union of
India’, if the suit is by or against Central Government and ‘State’, if the suit is by or against
State Government.
 In Santhanand v. Basu-devanand AIR 1930 All 225 (FB), the court commented on
Section 79 of CPC and said that it lays down the procedure for the institution of the
suit but does not establish any rights or liabilities on the government. However, a
 simple reading of the provision clarifies that the section does not mention any
procedure as to the commencement of the proceedings or how the cause of action
arises. It only mentions the necessary parties in a suit involving the government or a
public officer.
 In Jehangir Cursetji v. Secy. of State for India (1904) ILR 27 Bom 122, the Bombay
High court observed that this provision does not provide the cause of action but only
mentions the manner of proceeding after the cause of action has arisen. The procedure
to be followed in a suit involving government has been explained and evolved by the
judiciary through several leading cases.
 In  Dominion of India v. RCKC Nath AIR 1950 Cal 207, the court clarified the point
of the jurisdiction of civil courts with respect to suits involving government or public
officers. The court held that any suit by or against the government can be filed only
before that court within the territorial jurisdiction of whose the cause of action had
arisen.
If the court within whose local jurisdiction the cause of action arose is not competent to hear
the case, the suit cannot be filed before such court. The court further held that expressions
used in the CPC such as ‘reside, dwell or carry on business’ do not apply to suits involving
government instrumentalities.

 Moreover, if the suit is by or against the railway, the procedure to be followed was
explained in R.C. Jall v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1281. In this case, the apex
court observed that if a rail authority is maintained by the Central or State
government, a suit can be filed by or against the government itself and rail
administration is not required to be impleaded as a party.

In the present case, the central government sued the appellant for collection of cess charges
not paid by the appellants and the court held that railway administration need not be the
plaintiff and the suit filed by the government is admissible.

Section 80 of the Code- enacts a rule of procedure and clarifies that no suit shall be instituted
against the Government or against a public officer until a statutory notice required by the
section is served. The section enumerates two types of cases:

(1) Suits against the Government; and

(2) Suits against public officers in respect of acts done or purporting to be done by such
public officers in their official capacity.
  The notice under Section 80 is called a statutory notice because it is a statutory
mandate under Section 80 to issue a notice to the government or the public officer
against whom a case is filed.
 The primary reason for a notice under Section 80 is to save the time and expense of
the government and litigants. The provision lays down the manner in which the notice
has to be issued and served.

The manner can be enlisted for easy understanding as follows:

 Notice must be issued two months prior to the date of institution of the suit.
 Notice must be in writing.
 Notice must be either delivered through registered post or left at the office of the
Secretary to the Central or State Government.
 Notice must be delivered or left at the office of the General Manager of Railways if
the suit is against the railway.

In general, the notice should contain the details of the plaintiff, the situation that led to the
cause of action, time of the cause of action and the claims of the plaintiff that will remedy the
injury caused. Further, in Sankar Mukherjee v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 532 the apex court
held that “notice is required to convey to its recipient’s sufficient information to enable him to
consider the plaintiff’s claim”.

As aforementioned, the legal notice issued under this provision is for the benefit of the
government to allow it to resolve the dispute without expending time and money.

 In Lal Chand v. Union of India,12 August 2009, the court observed that since it is
completely for the government, the concerned government or the public officer can
waive off the issuance of notice. Nevertheless, if the notice is not duly served and the
suit is filed, the government can object to it and the plaint shall be rejected by the
court.

Execution of a Decree against the Government -The procedure to institute the suit has
already been explained and all the prerequisites to the commencement of proceedings are
dealt with. After the institution of suit, the court proceedings continue in the same manner as
any other suit except the government is represented by a government pleader.
 Exemption from arrest and personal appearance (Section 81):- Section 81 of the code
provides that in a suit against a public officer of any act purporting to be done in his official
capacity i.e. act of public officer as mentioned above, he has an exemption from arrest and
from attachment of his property until execution of decree. Further if defendant that is public
officer cannot absent himself from his duty, then he has exemption from personal appearance
during ongoing suit.

Execution of decree (Section 82):- The next procedure is the execution of a decree. Suppose
the plaintiff is an individual and the suit is against the central or state government or a public
officer and the decree is pronounced in favour of the plaintiff. The question is would the
decree be executed in the same manner as other decrees. Section 82 provides that in a suit by
or against govt. or public officer, decree is pass against govt. or public officer it will not be
executed unless it remains unsatisfied for the period of three monts computed from the date
of such decree. Further it provides that this provision regarding execution of decree will
apply on an order or award passed by any court or by any other authority or if it were capable
of being executed under this code or under any other law in force as if it were a decree

Section 82 (1) of the Code throws light on this question and provides that a decree obtained
against a government or public officer shall be executed in accordance with the terms of
Section 82 (2). According to this provision, no suit for execution can be filed against the
government for three months from the date on which the decree was passed.

This period to allow the government to fulfil the requirements of the decree and remedy the
wrong that it had done. If the plaintiff’s claims remain unsatisfied for three months, the
execution application can be filed in accordance with the rules under Order XXI of the CPC.

Procedure (Order 27 of CPC, 1908):-

 Order 27 Rule 1 provides that in a suit by or against govt. a plaint or written

statement shall be signed by a person who has appointed for this by govt. Further it
shall be verified by a person who is acquainted with the facts and appointed by govt.
for verification. The sanction to sign must be prior to the institution otherwise the
signing shall be by an incompetent person. A retrospective sanction cannot cure the
defect.
  Order 27 Rule 2 provides that Person authorized to act for the Govt. in respect of
any judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be recognized agent by whom appearance,
acts and applications under this code may be made or done on behalf of Govt.

 Order 27 Rule 3 provides that in a plaint of a suit by or against govt. instead of

providing all detail of plaintiff or defendant it is sufficient to insert appropriate name
as provided in section 79 of CPC, 1908.

 Order 27 Rule 4 provides that Government Pleader shall be the agent of Govt. for
the purpose of receiving processes against the Govt. by Court. Govt. Pleader is only to
intimate the court that he is representing the Govt. No stamped power of attorney or
vakalatnama is required. A person other that the Govt. pleader can act only when the
latter intimates to the court that the former is acting under his direction. The
Government like any other litigant can engage as many as advocates as it thinks
necessary.

 Order 27 Rule 5 provides that court will allow a reasonably time to govt. to answer
the plaint so as to make necessary communication between govt. and govt. pleader.
The time shall not be exceeded more than 2 months. The benefit of Rule 5 is available
to the govt. after it has made it appearance also.

 Order 27 Rule 5A provides that in suit against a public officer in respect of any act
alleged to have been done by him in his official capacity, the govt. shall be joined as a
party to a suit.

 Order 27 Rule 5B provides that it is a duty of a court in any case against a govt. or
public officer acting in his official capacity to make attempt at first instance for the
settlement of disputes between parties. Further if finds at any stage of proceeding that
there is reasonable possibility for settlement between parties court will adjourn the
case for such a time to enable attempt to solve a dispute.

CONCLUSION –

For any suit against a govt. first of all it is necessary that party should be name according to
section 79 of CPC. Further to institutive a suit against govt. or public officer acting in
purporting to his official duty it is mandatory to give prior notice of 2 months. The only
exception to this rule is provided by addition of 80(2) after the amendment of 1976.

Unit- IV

Ques. 4 Discuss the concept of Summary Procedure under CPC.

INTRODUCTION - Order 37 Rule 1 to 7 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the
provisions of Summary Procedure by which certain suits i.e Summary Suits are decided
summarily. It is a shortcut method of deciding the suits without the following strict, technical
rules of procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code.

The summary suit is a unique legal procedure used for enforcing a right in an efficacious
manner as the courts pass judgement without hearing the defence.While this prima facie
would appear to be violative of the cardinal principle of natural justice, Audi Alteram
Partem, nobody should be condemned unheard, this procedure is only used in cases where
the defendant has no defence and is applicable to only limited subject matter

 A Summary Suit is peculiar in the sense that in such a suit the defendant is not entitled as a
matter of right to defend the suit, as an ordinary suit. Summary Suits are much easier to
establish and much tougher for the defendant to defend than Ordinary suit. In Summary Suit
the defendant is not entitled as a matter of right to defend the suit. Defendant has to obtain the
leave of the Court and if he does not apply for such leave within the prescribed period or if
Court refused such leave, the plaintiff gets a decree in his favour.

OBJECT - The object underlying the summary procedure is to ensure an expeditious hearing
and disposal of the suit and to prevent unreasonable obstruction by the defendant who has no
defence or a frivolous and vexatious defence held in Kocharabhai Ishwarbhai Patel v.
Gopal Bhai C Patel AIR 1973 Gujarat 29 (31) and to assist expeditious disposal of cases
held in Bankyag B G Agarawal v. Bhagwanti Mehji 2001 (1) Bom LR 823 (DB)

The Gujarat High Court in outlining the object of summary suits opined that the sheer
purpose of enacting Summary Suits is to give impetus to commerce and industry by inspiring
confidence in commercial population that their causes in respect of money claims of
liquidating amounts (ascertained amount) would be expeditiously decided and their claims
will not hang on for years blocking their money for a long period.
SCOPE AND EXTENT OF APPLICATION -A summary suit can be instituted in High
Courts, City Civil Courts, Courts of Small Causes and any other court notified by the High
Court. High Courts can restrict, enlarge or vary the categories of suits to be brought under
this order.

As explained above that the object of Summary suits is to aid commercial transactions by a
swift redressed mechanism these suits can be instituted only in case of certain specified
documents.

CATEGORIES OF SUMMARY SUIT –

Summary suit can be filed only for two categories of Suits-

(1) Suit upon Bill of Exchange, Hundies, Promissory Notes

(2) To Recover debt, Liquidated demand in money payable by the
defendant on written Contract, and on Guarantee where the claim
against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only
or on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed
sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty.

As the purpose of summary suits is to act as a welfare mechanism to achieve justice in an

expedient manner, the language under Or.37 is to be interpreted liberally which has been
reflected in numerous judgments. An illustrative example would be the phrase written
contracts that have been given the widest possible interpretation as even Invoices/Bills are
written contract within the contemplation of Order 37 (KIG Systel Ltd v.  Fijitsu ICIM Ltd
AIR 2001 Del 357)

In case of Summary Suits, After decree the Court may, under special circumstances, set aside
the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant
to appear to the summons and to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the court so to do,
and on such points as the Court thinks fit. 

PROCEDURE OF SUMMARY SUITS - Rules 2 and 3 provide the procedure of summary

suits. Under rule 2 after the summons of the suit has been issued to the defendant. The
defendant is not entitled to defend Summary suit unless he enters an appearance. In Summary
suit, the defendant must prove his fact Within 10 Days
  In default of this, the plaintiff will be entitled to an ex parte decree which is on a
different footing to an Ex Parte decree passed in ordinary suits.
 In the case that the defendant appears, the defendant must apply for leave to defend
within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him and such leave will be
granted only if the affidavit filed by the defendant discloses such facts as may be
deemed to entitle him to defend.
 The cases where leave to defend should and shouldn’t be granted have been analyzed
subsequently.

(1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under
rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexes thereto and the defendant may,
at any time within ten days of such service, enter an appearance either in person or by pleader
and, in either case, he shall file in Court an address for service of notices on him.

(2) Unless otherwise order, all summonses, notices and other judicial processes, required to
be served on the defendant, shall deemed to have been duly served on him if they are left at
the address given by him for such service.

(3) On the day of entering the appearance, notice of such appearance shall be given by the
defendant to the plaintiff’s pleader, or, if the plaintiff sues in person, to the plaintiff himself,
either by notice delivered at or sent by pre-said letter directed to the address of the plaintiff’s
pleader or of the plaintiff, as the case may be.

(4) If the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff shall thereafter serve on the defendant
a summons for judgment in Form No. 4A in Appendix B for such other Form as may be
prescribed from time to time, returnable not less than ten days from the date of service
supported by an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed and stating
that in his belief there is no defence to the suit.

Summary, suits setting aside an ex parte decree is stricter and more stringent and special
circumstances for non-appearance need to be set out, while in ordinary suits only sufficient
cause needs to be shown. The difference between special circumstances and sufficient cause
has been elucidated below.

The two terms “SUFFICENT CAUSE” and “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” have been
lucidly juxtaposed in Karumili Bharathi v. Prichikala Venkatchalam 1999 (3)
ALD366.  The reasons offered by the defendant to explain the special circumstances should
be such that he had no possibility of appearing before the Court on a relevant day.

For instance, there was a strike and all the buses were withdrawn and there was no other
mode of transport. This may constitute “special circumstances”. But if the defendant were to
plead that he missed the bus he wanted to board and consequently he could not appear before
the Court.

It may constitute a ‘sufficient cause’, but not a ‘special circumstance’. Thus a ‘special
circumstance’ would take with it a ’cause’ or ‘reason’, which prevents a person in such a way
that it is almost impossible for him to attend the Court or to perform certain acts which he is
required to do.

Thus the ‘reason’ or ’cause’ found in “special circumstances” is stricter or more stringent
than in “sufficient cause” and depends on the facts of each case.

NO DEFENCE - to proceed with summary suits the defendant must have any tenable
defence and the following are the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a leading
case which are as follows:

If the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence,
although not a positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign the judgment, and
the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend; and reiterated the
principles to be adhered to in the case of a leave to defend summary suit relating to the
dishonoured cheques.

Even if the defendant raises triable issues, if a doubt is left with the trial judge about the
defendant’s good faith or the genuineness of the triable issues, or if they are plausible but not
probable, the trial judge may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial, as well as
payment into court or furnishing security

In the case of Uma Shankar Kamal Narain v. MD overseas limited 2007 4 SCC 133, it has
been held that “Unconditional leave to defend a suit shall not be granted unless the amount as
admitted to be due by the Defendant is deposited in Court.”

 POWERS OF THE COURT –

 Power to set aside decree.

After decree for the Court may, under special circumstances set aside the decree, and if
necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant to appear to the
summons and to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the Court so to do, and on such
terms as the Court thinks fit.

 Power to order bill, etc, to be deposited with officer of Court.

In any proceeding under this Order the Court may order the bill, hundi or note on which the
suit is founded to be forthwith deposited with an officer of the Court, and may further order
that all proceedings shall be stayed until the plaintiff gives security for the costs thereof. It is

CONCLUSION - Order 37 engineers an appropriate mechanism that ensures that the

defendant does not prolong the litigation especially as in commercial matters time is of the
essence and helps further the cause of Justice and Summary suits act like an ingenious
solution to help prevent unreasonable obstructions by a defendant who has no tenable defence
and are beneficial to businesses as unless the defendant is able to demonstrate that he has a
substantial defence, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment.
 Unit- V

Ques.5 Discuss the concept and objective of Limitation Act- 1963.

CONCEPT- Limitation means a prescribed time limit according to statute. The concept of
limitation is related with the fixing or prescribing of period for barring legal actions. The law
of limitation has been prescribed as time limits within which a party must bring a claim, or
give notice of a claim to the other party. They are imposed by statute, primarily the
Limitation Act and are given for different suits to the aggrieved person within which they
can approach the court for redress or justice.

The basic concept of limitation is relating to fixing or prescribing of the time period for
barring legal actions. According to Section 2 (j) of the Limitation Act, 1963, ‘period of
limitation’ means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the
Schedule, and ‘prescribed period’ means the period of limitation computed in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.

The Law of Limitation signifies to prevent from the last date for different legal actions which
can take place against an aggrieved person and to advance the suit and seek remedy or
righteous before the court. Where a suit is initiated after the bar of limitation, it will be hit by
the law of limitation. The main and the fundamental aim of the law of limitation is to protect
the lengthy process of penalizing a person indirectly without doing any offence

OBJECT OF LIMITATION -The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. In

Halsbury’s Laws of England, the objects of the Limitation Acts have been presented as
follows: “The Courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence
of statutes of limitation, namely –

(i) That long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them;
(ii) That a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the State claim;
(iii) That persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with.

The object of limit in legal actions is to give effect to two maxims ‘interest reipublicae ut sit
finis litium’ i.e. the interest of the State requires that there should be limit to litigation
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt i.e. The law assist the vigilant and not one
who sleeps over his rights.The intention in accepting the concept of limitation is that
“controversies are restricted to a fixed period of time, lest they should become immortal
while men are moral.”

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT-

1. First Division deals with Suits (Articles 1- 113)

2. Second Division deals with Appeals ( Articles 114-117)

3. Third Division deals with Applications (Articles 118-137)

Rules of limitation are prima facie rules of procedure and do not create any rights in favour of
any person nor do they define or create cause of action but simply prescribe that the remedy
could be exercised only up to a certain period and not subsequently.

PRACTICAL INSIGHTS –

(1) Rajender Singh & Ors vs Santa Singh & Ors 1974 SCR (1) 381 The Ps (A), filed
an appeal in a suit for possession of land against the Ds The plaintiffs were the sons of
Smt. Premi, a daughter of Sham Singh (Deceased), the original owner of the plots,
and of Smt. Malan, who was the widow of Sham Singh, had gifted the plots in dispute
in 1935, half and half, to the plaintiffs and Smt. Khemi, the younger sister of their
deceased mother, Smt. Premi.

It appears that Smt. Khemi, who was issueless, had also made a gift in favour of the
Plaintiffs before her death in 1944. The plaintiffs are, said to have obtained possession of the
whole land in dispute thus gifted to them.' But, as there was considerable uncertainty at that
time about the rights of the daughters and the powers of a widow to donate during her life
time under the customary law in Punjab, which was applicable to the parties.

There was also a dispute over mutation of names between the Ps and Ds in revenue courts
which ended finally by judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court
passed in favour of the appellants on 21-11-1958.  The plaintiffs asserted, in their suit filed
on 16-4-1959, now before SC that the Ds had taken illegal and forcible possession of the land
in dispute after the decision of the High Court on 21-11-1958, and that, as the DS refused to
deliver possession of the land to the plaintiffs, they were compelled to file their suit for
possession. The Ds, however, claimed that they had taken possession over the whole of the
land in dispute after the death of Smt. Khemi, issueless, in 1944, and that, since then, they
had been in open, continuous, exclusive possession as owners, adversely to the rest of the
world. Hence, according to the defendants- respondents, the plaintiffs' suit was barred by
limitation.

DECISION - Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, the adverse possession of the
defendants, who were appellants before the High Court, commenced during the pendency of
the earlier suit, and, once having begun to run, could not stop running merely because of the
pendency of the defendants' suit for possession which was finally dismissed by the High
Court on 21-11- 1958. On the other hand the doctrine of lis pendens, contained in Section 52
of the Transfer of Property Act, would enable the plantiffs-appellants to overcome the
consequences of defendants' adverse possession until 21-11-1958 so that the doctrine of lis
pendens could operate as a provision enabling exclusion of time during the pendency of the
defendants' suit of 1940. Appeal dismissed.

INTERPRETATION BY THE COURT - In the case of Rajendra Singh v. Santa Singh,

(1973) 2 SCC 705 the Supreme Court of India has held “The object of the law of limitation is
to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by
long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party’s own inaction, negligence or latches.”

(2) B.B. & D. Mfg. Co. v. ESI Corpn., (AIR 1972 SC 1935) the Supreme Court has
observed that: “The object of the Statutes of limitations to compel a person to exercise
his rights of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale,
fake or fraudulent claims.

While this is so, there are two aspects of the Statutes of limitation — the one concerns with
the extinguishment of the right if a claim or action is not commenced within a particular time
and the other merely bars the claim without affecting the right which either remains merely as
a moral obligation or can be availed of to furnish the consideration for a fresh enforceable
obligation.

Where a statute prescribing the limitation extinguishes the right if affects substantive right
while that which purely pertains to the commencement of action without touching the right is
said to be procedural.”

(3) In Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it was held by the
Supreme Court that the Limitation Act is based upon public policy which is used for
 fixing a life span of a legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. It has been
pointed out that the Law of Limitation are not only meant to destroy the rights of the
parties but are meant to look to the parties who do not resort the tactics but in general
to seek remedy. It fixes the life span for legal injury suffered by the aggrieved person
which has been enshrined in the maxim ‘interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium’ which
means the Law of Limitation is for general welfare and that the period is to be put into
litigation and not meant to destroy the rights of the person or parties who are seeking
remedy. The idea with regards to this is that every legal remedy must be alive for a
legislatively fixed period of time.

IMPORTANT LIMITATION DATES - Contract: within six years of the date of breach; 
Contract under seal (deeds): within 12 years of the breach of contract or deed.

Negligence (other than personal injury or death): within six years of the negligent act or
omission; or (if later) within three years from the date of knowledge in cases of latent
damage; claims for negligent latent damage are barred 15 years after the negligent act or
omission; period runs from the date the damage is suffered; for physical damage,

the limitation period runs from the date of the damage itself – not the act which causes
damage. Tort (generally, including conversion and trespass): within six years of the date of
the cause of action.

Fraud: within six years; Libel, slander and malicious falsehood: within one year; A claim for
the recovery of land, proceeds of sale or land or money secured by a mortgage or charge:
within 12 years from the right accruing – after that time, the claimant's title in the proceeds,
land or mortgage is extinguished. To enforce a judgement: within six years of the date on
which the judgement

TO SUM UP:

 The Law of Limitation is an adjective Law. It is lex fori. Thus, it can be said that the
rules of the Law of Limitation are generally prima facie with the rules of procedure
and which has not created any rights in favour of any particular person nor does they
define or create any cause of action. It has been simply prescribed that the remedy can
be exercised only for a limited fixed period of time and subsequently.
 The two effective implementation which helps in for a quick disposal of a cases or
matters and which are also effective for litigation are Limitation and compensation of
delay, which plays a vital role before the court.
 The Law of Limitation helps to keep a check while pulling of cases where it
prescribes the period of time within which a suit is to be filled and also it is the time
which are available within which an aggrieved person can get the remedy
conveniently and in an easy manner.
 Whereas the Law of Compensation of delay helps to keep the principle of natural
justice alive and it also helps to state the facts that when different people might have
different problem then the same kind of sentence or a same singular rule may not
apply to all of them in a same manner. Thus, it is very much essential to hear the
matter first from them and then decide accordingly whether they are fit in the criteria
of the judgment or whether they should be given another chance. So, it can be said
that Law of Limitation is very much important for the country like India and it also
plays a major role in a court of law.