Theoretical 1Foundations of

Code of Civil Procedure

ABSTRACT
The law of civil procedure prescribes the procedure for enforcement of substantive civil
rights. Although the substantive civil right laws are more important than civil procedural
laws, the efficacy of substantive civil laws mainly depends on the quality of the law of civil
procedure. Unless the procedure for enforcing a right is simple, effective, expeditious and
inexpensive; substantive laws, however well they may have been made, would fail in their
purpose and object. Therefore, before undertaking an examination of any aspect of the law of
civil procedure, it is necessary to discuss the foundational issues in relation to civil
procedure. These issues are: whether civil procedure is an adjective law? How the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 evolved and developed over time? What are the objects, scope and
extent of applicability of the Code? How the Code is to be interpreted? Whether the Code
should have retrospective operation? Whether the Code provides an adversary procedure or
an inquisitorial procedure? To what extent has such adversary procedure been effective? This
chapter is primarily devoted to an examination of the aforementioned aspects.

CIVIL PROCEDURE IS AN ADJECTIVE LAW: CLASSIFICATION AND

IMPORTANCE

Substantive Law and Procedural Law

The law of civil procedure is an adjective law to facilitate justice and further its ends.
While substantive law determines the rights and liabilities of parties, adjective or procedural
law prescribes the practice, procedure and machinery for enforcement of those rights and
liabilities.2 In this sense, law can broadly be categorised into two groups: (i) substantive law,
and (ii) adjective or procedural law.3 While the Indian Contract Act, the Transfer of Property

1 . Aman Lohia v. Kiran Lohia, AIR 2021 SC 1748: (2021) 5 SCC 489. See also, Jatindra Kumar Das,
"Rethinking Theoretical Foundations of the Code of Civil Procedure: Prospect and Retrospect" 53
Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 1—31 (2011).
2 . Telecommunications Consultants v. Madhya Pradesh Rural Road, AIR 2018 MP 241: 2019 (1) MPLJ
99.
3 . Bal Kishan Bansal v. Pramit Bansal, AIR 2006 All 305: 2006 (9) ADJ 538.

Copyrighted material
4 • Code of Civil Procedure

3
Act, the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Indian Penal Code are examples of substantive law;
the Code of Civil Procedure, the Indian Evidence Act, 4 the Limitation Act, 56 the Code of
Criminal Procedure are examples of procedural law. Rights and obligations of the members
of a civilised society would be rendered meaningless unless they are determined and
enforced. This is made possible by two sets of laws—substantive law and procedural law. 7
However, in Mattoo Devi v. Damodar Lal, 8 the Supreme Court held that the substantive law
and procedural law overlap each other more often.
The essential distinction between substantive law and procedural law is that while
substantive law confers legal rights and defines the nature and extent of legal duties, adjective
or procedural law prescribes the procedure for the enforcement of legal rights by a Court of
law or any other tribunal. 9 Thus, procedural law is necessarily subservient to substantive law.
1011
Nothing can be provided by a procedural law that is not already sought to be given by a
substantive law; and nothing can be taken away by a procedural law that has been given by a
substantive law. ll As a general rule, laws which fix duties, establish rights and responsibilities
among and for persons, natural or otherwise, are substantive laws in character, while those,
that merely prescribe the manner in which such rights and responsibilities may be exercised
and enforced in a court are procedural laws. Examining the distinction between substantive
law and procedural law the Karnataka High Court in 8 Rao v. Geeta, 12 observed that if a piece
of substantive law is amended, then such a law would have prospective operation unless
made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment. But when it comes to the
procedural law, the position is contrary. In the case of an amendment of a procedural law, the
amendment is always retrospective in operation, unless by a contra indication is made that it
is only prospective. 13 Referring Salmond's Jurisprudence (Twelfth Edition, p. 462), the
distinction between substantive law and procedural law has also been pointed out by the
Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup, 14 thus:
What, then, is the true nature of the distinction? The law of procedure may be defined as that
branch of the law which governs the process of litigation. It is the law of actions— jus quod ad
actions pertinent—using the term action in a wide sense to include all legal proceedings, civil or
criminal. All the residue is substantive law, and relates, not to the process of litigation, but to its
purposes and subject-matters. Substantive law is concerned with the ends which the
administration of justice seeks, procedural law deals with the means and instruments by which
those ends are to be attained. The latter regulates the conduct and relations of courts and litigants

4 . Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 183: (1977) 1 SCC 133.
5 . A.S. Krishnappa Chettiar v. Nachiappa Chettiar, AIR 1964 SC 227: [1964] 2 SCR 241.
6 . Lalita Kuman v. Government of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1515: 2012 (3) SCALE 152.
7 . Halsbury's Laws of India, Butterworths, New Delhi, Il (2002).
8 . AIR 2001 SC 2611: (2001) 6 SCC 330.
9 . Syndicate Bank v. Mr. Prabha D. Naik, AIR 2001 SC 1968: (2001) 4 SCC 713.
10 . Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802: (1984) 3 SCC 161.
11 . Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El-Edroos v. Abdulhabib Hasan Arab, AIR 1998 SC 1624: (1998) 4 SCC343.
12 . ILR 2017 KARNATAKA 2882: 2017 (1) KCCR 915.
13 . Hindustan Petroleum v. Union of India, (2016) 89 VST 235(Karn): ILR 2015 KARNATAKA 5473.
14 . 1994 (4) SCALE 413 (1994) 6 SCC 623. See also, Ezhuthachan National Academy v. R. Gopinathan
Nair, 2019 (1) KHC 798: 2019 (2) KLT 1073.

Copyrighted material
 Chapter 1 Theoretical Foundations of Code of Civil Procedure • 5

in respect of the litigation itself; the former determines their conduct and relations in respect of
the matters litigated.
Since 15the function of procedural law or adjective law is to "facilitate justice and
further its ends, the rules of procedure must be construed liberally and in such a manner that
renders the enforcement of substantive rights effective. 16 Thus, a hyper-technical view must
not be adopted by courts in interpreting procedural laws. For example, a party cannot be
refused relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or infraction of the
rules of procedure. 1718 Law of civil procedure plays an important role of adjective law by
forming an indispensable part of the machinery of justice and operates as an essential tool
towards: (i) enforcing legal rights and claims; (ii) redressing or preventing legal wrongs; (iii)
asserting legal defences; and (iv) other ancillary purposes, notwithstanding its apparent
complexity and its occasional technicality.
The essential characters of the law of civil procedure can be categorised into three
classes, namely: complementary, protective and remedial or practical, which are as follows:
l . In its complementary character, law of civil procedure is ordinarily contrasted with
substantive law. Although substantive law confers rights, it is by procedure that the
law is put into motion. It is procedural law which gives life to substantive law by
providing its remedy and effectiveness and bringing it into being. As the law of
civil procedure neither creates nor takes away any right, but only regulates the
procedure to be followed by Civil Courts, its provisions must be interpreted in a
manner so as to serve and advance the cause of justice rather than defeat it.
2. In its protective character, the law of civil procedure represents the public
functioning of the legal machinery and the operation of the "due process of law „ .
18 Every person has a right to approach a Court of law if he has a grievance for
which the law provides a remedy. 1920 Due process of law means nobody ought to be
condemned unheard. It includes an opportunity for the defendant to file pleadings
including written statement and documents before the Court of law. It does not
mean the whole trial. Due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of the
parties are adjudicated by a competent court. The expressions "due process of law",
"due course of law" and "recourse to law" have been interchangeably used. 20
Thus, law of civil procedure safeguards every person and his right to life, liberty,
reputation, livelihood and property. It also ensures that no person shall suffer any
deprivation of his rights, except in accordance with the accepted rules of procedure.
3. In its remedial or practical character, the law of civil procedure deals with the actual
litigation process itself, in accordance with the practice and procedure of the courts
and enhances the importance and application of the rules, practical and procedural
modes and methods for the conduction of the judicial process. The very basis upon
15 . Y. Savarimuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2019 (8) SCALE 104: 2019 (3) RCR (Civil) 83.
16 . M.V. Elisabeth v. llanvan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 1014: (1993) 2 SCC 433.
17 . Narendra Kumar v. Chairman and Managing Director, AIR 2019 SC 2815: 2019 (7) SCALE 264.
18 . Alagu Pharmacy v. N. Magudeswari, AIR 2018 SC 3821: (2018) 8 SCC 311.
19 . Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, JT 2010 (8) SC 66: (2010) 8 SCC 1.
20 . Maria Margarida Sequeria v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, 2012 (3) SCALE 550: 2012 (3) ALT 518 (SC).

Copyrighted material
6 • Code of Civil Procedure

which a judicial process can be resorted to is reasonableness and fairness in a trial.

21

Importance of Procedural Law

The law of civil procedure plays a crucial and determining role in expediting the adjudication
of civil disputes. Thus, the law of civil procedure is an adjunct or an accessory to substantive
law. The two branches of law are complementary to each other and interdependent and the
interplay between them often conceals that which is substantive law and which is procedural
law. The right to secure protection in case of violation of substantive right is a statutory right.
It is a well known principle of law that "where there is a right, there is a remedy" derived
from the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. 22 Explaining the aforesaid doctrine the Supreme Court
in Bhagwati Developers v. The Peerless, 2324 observed:
If a man has a right, he must have the means to vindicate and maintain it, and also a remedy, if he
is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of the said right, and that it is indeed, a vain thing to
imagine a right without a remedy, for the want of a right and the want of a remedy, are reciprocal.

Thus, procedural law puts life into substantive law by providing a remedy. The Code of
Civil Procedure neither creates nor takes away any right; it is intended to regulate the
procedure to be followed by Civil Courts. While emphasising the importance of procedural
law, Greaves Cotton Limited v. Santosh Passi, the Delhi High Court held that if law
prescribed a particular act to be done in particular manner, it must be done in that manner
only and thus Section 26(2) as well as Order 6, Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure the
word "shall" which in the given context, would imply that the requirement is mandatory.
Thus, in Prashant Bhagwandas Bajoriya v. Bharti Bharat Bajoriya, 25 the Bombay High Court
has given wide meaning to the phrase " in any proceeding" so as to advance the cause of
justice. All proceedings in the Court of civil jurisdiction would fall within the scope of this
phrase so as to lien in favour of Court having power under Section 151, 152 and 153 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to correct errors in the proceeding so as to amend judgment and
decree in order to justice between the parties.

Present Trends
While under English law before the Judicature Act, 1873 26 the law of procedure assumed
great importance; under modern English and Indian laws, the tendency is to treat it as
subordinate and as a mere accessory to substantive law. Therefore, in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Roshan

21 . Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496: [2010] 10 SCR 1070.
22 . State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2017) 3 SCC 362: 2016 (12) SCALE 679.
23 . [2013] 178 comp. Cas. 1 (SC): 2013 (5) SCALE 378.
24 . (2006) ILR 1 Delhi 345.
25 . 2015 (6) Bom CR 425: 2016 (1) ALLMR 97. See also, Hansabai Shripati Bhosale v. Parubai Gopal
Bhosale, 2009 (111) Bom I-R 3173: 2009 (5) Bom CR 5.
26 . This Act came into force with effect from November l, 1875, and carried out drastic reforms in the
law of civil procedure. It continued the reforms commenced by the Common Law Procedure Acts of
1852 and 1860. See, C.B. Whitter, "Notice Pleading", 31 Harvard Law Review, 507 (1918).

Copyrighted material
 Chapter 1 Theoretical Foundations of Code of Civil Procedure • 7

Singh,27 the Supreme Court observed that all the rules of procedure are the handmaid of
justice. 2829Further, in Prashant Bhagwandas Bajoriya v. Bharti Bharat Bajoriya, 28 the
Supreme Court held that procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction
but an aid to justice. The truth of the matter is that the means and ends are really
complementary to one another and it is not always easy to draw the dividing line. In
examining the contemporary trends of importance of procedural law the Allahabad High
Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushma Gupta, 29 observed that the test to find out
as to whether it was substantive or procedural was reiterated, that what has to be seen is, as to
whether the Statute extinguishes merely the remedy or extinguishes the substantive right as
well the remedy, and therefore as a matter of principle the safest course would be as to
whether it effects substantive rights and extinguishes them or whether it merely concerns a
procedural rule dealing with remedies. Thus, in Videocon International Limited v. Securities
and Exchange Board of India, 30 the Supreme Court held that the right of appeal is a vested
right and thus a right of substantive law. Further, the Supreme Court in Thirumalai Chemicals
Limited v. Union of India, 31 held that a right of appeal under the Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999 is a substantive right and the procedure for filing such an appeal is a
procedural right.
In Vallabhaneni Lakshmana Swamy v. Valluru Basavaiah, 32 the Andhra Pradesh High
Court held that it is not a case of right of appeal was taken away, while not disturbing the
substantive right, if the forum is changed and the right of the appeal in the forum are so
inextricable that they cannot be separated by clear cut measure. It has to be that the right of
appeal as well as the forum are both substantive rights. A question may arise whether the
provisions of the limitation Act are purely procedural or they are also substantive legal
principles. Such a question is not free from doubt or ambiguity. Hence, a similar question has
been examined by the Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Employees
State Insurance Corporation. 33 In this case the court examined the Section 96(l)(b) of the
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 empowered the government to prescribe by rule the
"procedure" to be followed in proceedings before the insurance court. The State government
made a rule prescribing a period of limitation of 12 months for application to the insurance
court. The respondent filed an application for contribution due from the appellant beyond 12
months from the date on which it was due and the appellant contended that the application

27 . AIR 2008 SC 1190: (2008) 2 SCC 488. see also, JK Jute Mill v. Juggilal Kamiapat, AIR 2019 SC
2138: 2019 (3) CTC 715.
28 . AIR 2007 SC 2571: (2007) 6 SCC 420. See also, Surendra Trading v. Juggilal Kamiapat, AIR 2018
sc 186: (2017)16 scc 143.
29 . 2018 4 AWC 3331 All: 2018 (126) ALR 305.
30 . AIR 2015 SC 1042: (2015) 4 SCC 33.
31 . AIR 2011 SC 1725: (2011) 6 SCC 739.
32 . 2004 (5) ALT 755: 2004 (5) ALD 807.
33 . AIR 1972 SC 1935: (1971) 2 SCC 860. See also, T. Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikal wakf, AIR 2009
sc 840: (2008) 9 scc 306.
Copyrighted material
8 • Code of Civil Procedure

was barred by time. On the question of the competency of the government to make the rule,
Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy, speaking for the court, observed:34
The topic of procedure has been the subject of academic debate and scrutiny as well of judicial
decisions over a long period but in spite of it, it has deferred the formulation of a logical test or
definition which enables us to determine and demarcate the bounds where procedural law ends
and substantive law begins, or in other words, it hardly facilitates us in distinguishing in a given
case whether the subject of controversy concerns procedural law or substantive law. The reason
for this appears to be obvious, because, substantive law deals with rights and is fundamental
while procedure is concerned with legal processes involving actions and remedies, which
Salmond defines "as that branch of law which governs the process of litigation", or to put it in
another way, substantive law is that which we enforce while procedure deals with rules by which
we enforce it. We are tempted in this regard to cite a picturesque aphorism of Thurman Arnold 35
when he says: "Substantive law is canonised procedure. Procedure is unfrocked substantive law."

The court further stressed. 36

Historically, there was a period when substantive law was inextricably intermixed with procedure
at a later period procedural law seems to have reigned supreme when forms of action ruled. 37 In
the words of Maine38 "So great is the ascendancy of the Law of Actions in the infancy of Courts of
Justice, that substantive law has at first the look of being gradually secreted in the interstices of
procedure". Oliver (Wendal Arva) Holmes had however observed "in the Common Law, wherever
we trace a leading doctrine of substantive law far enough back, we are likely to find some
forgotten circumstance of procedure at its source". It does not therefore appear that the statement,
that substantive law determines rights and procedural law deals with remedies is wholly valid, for
neither the entire law of remedies belongs to procedure nor are rights merely confined to
substantive law. It appears to us that there is a difference between the manner in which
jurisprudential lawyers consider the question and the way in which judges view the matter. The
present tendency is that where a question of limitation arises, the distinction between so called
substantive and procedural statutes of limitation may not prove to be a determining factor. What
has to be considered in such a case is whether the statute extinguishes merely the remedy or
extinguishes the substantive right as well as the remedy.

After examining the provisions of the statute, the learned judge held that the rule fell in
the latter category and that the government could not therefore make the rule. This judgment
of the Supreme Court shows the complementary character of procedural law. Complementary
powers are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes though they are not limited
through those statutes. Thus, in Krishna District Milk Producers v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
39
the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a rule making power is conferred only for purpose
of giving effect to the provisions of the Act and they are not liable to be utilized for creating
additional burdens or liabilities which are not contemplated by the Act itself. Any such
exercise of power, which tends to limit the applicability of the provisions of the statute

34 . Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, AIR 1972 SC 1935:
(1971) 2 SCC 860 (at p. 865, SCC).
35 . Thurman W. Arnold, "Role of Substantive Law and Procedure in the Legal Process" 45 (4) Harvard
Law Review, 617-647, 645 (1932).
36 . Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, AIR 1972 SC 1935:
(1971) 2 SCC 860.
37 . Telecommunications Consultants v. Madhya Pradesh, Rural Road AIR 2018 MP 241: 2019 (l) MPLJ
99; Rama Rao P. v. Controlling Authority, (1998) 111 LLJ 114 AP: 1996 (2) ALT 406.
38 . Henry Sumner Maine, Early Law and Custom,389 (John Murray, London, 1890).
39 . 2016 (2) ALT 525: 2016 (2) ALD 118.

Copyrighted material
 Chapter 1 Theoretical Foundations of Code of Civil Procedure • 9

amounts to unauthorized exercise of power and consequently, the doctrine of Ultra Vires gets
attracted.
In T. Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikal Wakf, 40 the Supreme Court has considered the
limitation of filing a suit under the Wakf Act 1954, after the expiry of limitation under the
Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the suit for possession of the suit properties filed at
the instance of the Wakf were barred under the Limitation Act, 1908, the necessary corollary
would be to hold that the right of the Wakf to the suit properties stood extinguished in view of
Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and, therefore, when Section 107 of the Wakf Act
came into force, it could not revive the extinguished rights. In Anil Kumar Agarwal v. State of
U.P., 41 the Allahabad High Court held that as the petitioner has not preferred review within
reasonable time and review was itself suffers from undue delay and laches on part of
petitioner. Therefore, no benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can
be extended to the petitioner.

A Short Procedural Minutiae

In evaluating the importance of law of civil procedure, one must point out the procedural
minutiae of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Azhar Hussein v. Rajiv Gandhi, 42 the Supreme
Court while dealing with the question relating to rejection of an election petition with
reference to Order 8, Rule I l of the Code held that the purpose of conferment of power of
rejection of plaint is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove
abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court and the concerned litigants
are relieved of the psychological burden of the litigation. Since the Court has the power to act
at the threshold, the power must be exercised at the threshold itself in case the Court is
satisfied that it is a fit case for the exercise of such power. In T. Arivandandam v. T. V.
SatyapaI, 43 the Supreme Court held that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of a plaint
it is manifest that the plaint is vexatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue trial Court should exercise its power under Order 8, Rule Il of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the plaint should reject the plaint. Thus, this shows that law's delays can be
minimised easily and the arrears in the courts can be reduced substantially when courts
follow strictly the procedure prescribed in the Code and advocates co-operate with the
courts.44 In this case Krishna lyer J. observed:
"It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and
frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. And remembering that an advocate
is an officer of justice he owes it to society not to collaborate in shady actions. The Bar Council of
India, we hope will activate this obligation.„ 45

40 . AIR 2009 SC 840: (2008) 9 SCC 306.

41 . 2018 (4) ESC 1951 (All): 2018 (7) ADJ 272.
42 . AIR 1986 SC 1253: 1986 (supp) SCC 315.
43 . AIR 1977 SC 2421: (1977) 4 SCC 467. See also, Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh,
AIR 2019 SC 1430: 2019 (5) SCALE 70; Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, AIR 2018 sc
2447: (2018) 6 SCC 422.
44 . For speedy and efficacious justice, see, Ahmad M. Abdi v. State Q/' Maharashtra, 2019 (2) Bom CR
639; P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2018 SC 5013: 2018 (13) SCALE 60; Hussain v. Union
oflndia, AIR 2017 SC 1362: (2017) 5 SCC 702.

Copyrighted material
10 • Code of Civil Procedure

The observations of the learned judge, Krishna lyer, who in almost every branch of law
has been opening new vistas and extending the existing horizons, are of great importance.
The courts and advocates should accept and follow the suggestions of the learned judge in the
spirit in which they are made and work together in the great and noble task of doing justice to
the litigants before courts and doing it speedily. In the instant case, the petitioner had been
resorting to legal proceedings to evade an eviction order passed against him in eviction
proceeding before the rent courts and he ultimately filed a suit in the district munsiff for an
injunction restraining the execution of the eviction order. Failing to obtain a stay of execution
in the lower courts, he pursued the matter to the High Court and finally to the Supreme Court.
In the Supreme Court, the learned judge pointed out that it was a case of misuse of the
process of court and that such vexatious litigation should have been nipped in the bud if the
Trial Judge (i) considered the substance of the matter as disclosed in the plaint and exercised
his powers under Rule I l, Order 7 of the Code46, and (ii) subjected the party to a thorough
and searching examination at the first hearing under Order 10 of the Code. The learned judge
also suggested that Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with false evidence, should
be used against such parties and that deterrent action under Section 35-A of the Code dealing
with exemplary costs in cases of vexatious proceedings, should be taken against them.
In a large number of cases, the Supreme Court has been dealing with procedural
minutiae. The court has particularly come down very heavily upon cases where fraud was
involved47or where for one reason or the other, the jurisdiction of the court was abused. 48 In
Sumitra Devi Anand v. Shanti Devi Sethi, 49 the fact shows that a lawyer friend had been
indulging in fraudulent conduct. Both Sethi and Anand were migrants from Pakistan, who
had married two real sisters. In Delhi, they were tenants in a building in Karol Bagh. The
property was evacuee property. That property was auctioned in 1955. Both Sethi and Anand
bid for this building and since their bid was the highest, it was accepted. Anand failed to put
up the money, so Sethi became the sole purchaser. An eviction suit was filed by Sethi on
February 10, 1986. It was alleged that Anand put in appearance even before the due date of
hearing of the suit and filed a compromise. The court passed an eviction decree on the basis
of this compromise. Sethi who was a lawyer did not get it executed till February 28, 2000
which was the last date of the limitation. Anand claimed that the decree was obtained through
fraud and the High Court allowed his writ directing him to file a suit for resisting eviction. On
an appeal, the court held that in view of the strange facts, the possession of the tenant should
not be disturbed but the suit filed by Anand should be expeditiously decided.

45 . The obligation of the Bar Council of India has been acknowledged by the High Courts in a large
number of cases, for example, Sriram Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 4 AWC 3320 All; Aman Singh v. State
of [J.P., 2019 (132) ALR 91: 2019 (1) ADJ 16.
46 . Smt. Neena Vikram Verma v. Balmukund Singh Gautam, 2013 (5) SCALE 633.
47 . Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiash, AIR 2010 (SC) 744: (2010) 2 SCC 461.
48 . Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments, AIR 2019 SC 2390: 2019 (7) SCALE 834.
49 . AIR 2005 SC 545: (2005) 1 SCC 599. See also, Raj Bahadur Sarot v. Anju sarot, 2009 (1) RCR
(Civil) 378: (2008) 152 PLR 518.

Copyrighted material
 Chapter 1 Theoretical Foundations of Code of Civil Procedure • 11

Again, in Lal Singh Ram Singh Rajput v. Assistant Executive Engineer, 50 the appellant
had been working as a watchman, whose services were terminated without complying with
the requirement of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court had reinstated
him but had denied him back-wages. Both the parties filed writ petitions in the High Court
against the decision of the labour court. Lal Singh's petition was allowed awarding him
continuity of service while the employer's writ was dismissed. The employer filed another
writ appeal against the decision of the High Court. The appeal was allowed by another Bench
of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the employer had failed to disclose that his
first writ was dismissed in limine and an appeal against that dismissal had also been
dismissed. By not disclosing such facts, the employer had committed a fraud on the court and
had not come with clean hands. In North Eastern Railway v. Bhagwan Das, 51 the Supreme
Court categorically held that a judgment or decree by the first court or by the highest court
obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in the eye of law. A judgment is
a statement of reasoning on which the decision has been reached. There has to be reasonable
and logical nexus between the reasoning/findings of the court and the conclusions reached by
it.
Thus, in C. Govindaraj v. B.R. Asokan, 52 the Madras High Court observed that it is the
settled position of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a
nullity and non-est in the eye of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first Court or by the
highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can
be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. 53 Further, in Santosh v. Jagat Ram,
54
then the Supreme Court considered the validity of a decree obtained by fraud. The court
held that the decree was illegal, bad and is not binding upon the parties. A fraud puts an end
to everything. It is a settled position in law that such decree is nothing, but a nullity.
In State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) v. Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd., 55 the Supreme Court
came across with a self-contradictory judgment, which was impugned before it where
apparently there was no nexus between findings recorded by the Court and the conclusion
reached. The basic issue involved in the case was whether the suit premises were used as an
office or kutchery for collection of rent. The Trial Court decided the issue holding that the
suit premises were not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent. In an appeal, a
Division Bench of the High Court, despite having arrived at contrary findings, dismissed the
appeal. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, when the contrary findings were recorded in
favour of the appellant's claim, the only conclusion that could have been arrived at was to
allow the appeal, but strangely the High Court had dismissed it. The Supreme Court,
accordingly, corrected the apparent contradiction in the judgment. It is submitted with due
respect that proper care and caution should be taken to avoid inadvertence in writing
judgments adjudicating issues relating to life, liberty and property of people.
50 . AIR 2005 SC 2175: (2005) 11 SCC 204. see also, Taluka Panchayath Athani v. State of Karnat, 2006
(2) KCCR 1001.
51 . AIR 2008 SC 2139: (2008) 8 SCC 511.
52 . AIR 2018 Mad 187: (2017) 4 MLJ 524.
53 . State of Chhattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, AIR 2009 SC 2568: (2009) 13 SCC 600.
54 . 2010 (2) SCALE 218: (2010) 3 SCC 251.
55 . 2008 (6) SCALE 593: (2008) 5 SCC 384.

Copyrighted material
12 • Code of Civil Procedure

EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODE

Evolution of the Code
Background of the Code
The evolutionary background of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 begins in the year 1859 when
the first uniform Code of Civil Procedure 56 was enacted. Before 1859, the procedure in the
civil litigation was in a chaotic and coherent condition. As such, there was no uniform law of
procedure applicable to the country. Different provinces and areas had adopted different
procedure.57 In this circumstance Sir Charles Wood, made effort in that direction of evolving a
uniform procedure and directed the Second Law Commission to address itself to the
preparation of a Code of simple and uniform procedure applicable to all the Courts. The
Commission had submitted four drafts Code of Procedure which were intended to apply to
Ordinary Civil Courts of lower Provinces of Bengal and Presidencies of Madras and Bombay
and North Western Province. Four bills based on those drafts were, ultimately, came to be
amalgamated and enacted as Code of Civil Procedure, 1859 and applied to the mofussil
Courts only.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1859 was, however, not applicable to the Supreme Court
in the Presidency towns and Presidency Small Causes Courts. 58 Consequently, the Code was
subjected to a series of amendments. In the meantime, it was extended, subject to some
modifications, to the whole of British India. The Code was soon found to be lacking in many
respects. During 1863—64, a comprehensive Bill was prepared by Mr. Harrington to replace
it. But for some reasons, the enactment of the Bill was deferred and in the meantime, Acts
dealing with particular branches of law were enacted that necessitated corresponding changes
in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859. Later, Dr. Whitley Stokes, the then Secretary to the
Government of India in the Legislative Department rearranged the said draft Bill prepared by
Mr. Harrington in a systematic manner as per the provision of the Code of 1859. He
introduced a number of new provisions based on Orders and Rules made under the Judicature
Acts in England and also borrowed certain provisions of the New York Civil Code. Sir Arthur
Hobhouse, the then Law Member, made substantial contribution to the draft Bill, with certain
modifications, the Bill was enacted as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1877.59
Immediate after the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1877 it was realised that
this Code requires several amendments. As many as 130 Sections of the Code were amended
in 1879. When further amendments were proposed in 1882, it was decided that the Code
should be completely recast. Hence, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 was enacted. Under

56 . The Code of Civil Procedure, 1859. Prior to the Code of 1859, the procedure of the mofussil Courts was
regulated by Special Acts and Regulations repealed by Act 10 of 1861; and the procedure of the Supreme
Courts was under their own Rules and Orders and Certain Acts, e.g., Act 17 of 1882 and Act 6 of 1864.
57 . Jaimin J. Desai v. Gujarat Chamber of Commerce, AIR 2000 Guj 139: (2000) 1 GLR 920.
58 . In 1862, the Supreme Courts and the Courts of Sadder Diwani Adulat in the Presidency Towns were
abolished by the High Courts Act, 1861 and the powers of those Courts were vested in the Chartered
High Courts. The Letters Patent of 1862 establishing the High Courts extended to them the procedure of
the Code of 1859.
59 . The Code of Civil Procedure, 1877 repealed the Code of 1859. A.P. Laly v. Gurram Rama Rao, 2017
(6) ALD 300: 2017 (5) ALT 753; N. Renuka Devi v. E. Lalitha, (2016) 3 MLJ 176.

Copyrighted material
 Chapter 1 Theoretical Foundations of Code of Civil Procedure • 13

Sections 506 to 522 of the 1882 Code parties to a suit may apply for an order of reference to
arbitration, in which case, the arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be, may deliver an award
which ultimately may be enforced by a judgment which is to be according to the award and a
decree to follow. 60 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 had been in force for nearly 25 years,
but the provisions in Sections 506 and 522 had continued for ling time. A Committee was
constituted to consider the amendment of the 1982 Code which opined for re-arrangement of
the Code in accordance with precedent.61 It was discovered, that in respect of some matters
the provisions of the Code were too rigid to sufficiently meet the varying needs of the
different areas of the country. Moreover, there was conflict of judicial opinion relating to the
interpretation of certain provisions of the Code. Thus, the revision work of the Code was
undertaken by a Select Committee, which collected valuable material on the subject and
prepared a draft Bill. The draft Bill was examined by a Special Committee headed by Sir
Earle Richards. This Bill was enacted as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 62
The present law relating to the procedure in suits and civil proceedings in India is
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Code has been amended from time to
time by various Acts of the Central and State Legislatures. Under Section 122, the High
Courts have powers to amend, through Rules, the procedure laid down in the Orders. In
exercise of these powers, various amendments have been made in the Orders by the different
High Courts. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides a detail scheme of the law relating
to civil procedure.

Scheme of the Code

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can be divided into two parts: (i) the body of the Code
containing 158 Sections; and (ii) the (First) Schedule, containing 51 Orders with every Order
containing Rules. The Sections deal with provisions of a substantive nature, laying down the
general principles of jurisdiction, while the (First) Schedule relates to the procedure and the
method, manner and mode in which the jurisdiction may be exercised. The substantive part of
the Code containing Sections is fundamental and cannot be amended except by the
legislature. The (First) Schedule of the Code, containing Orders and Rules, on the other hand,
can be amended by High Courts. Looking at the scheme of the Code as a whole, it becomes
abundantly clear that the amendments made by High Courts in the Rules contained in the
(First) Schedule also become part of the Code for all purposes "as if enacted in the Code".
The Sections and the Rules, therefore, must be read together and harmoniously construed.
However, in a situation where the rules are inconsistent with the Sections, the latter will
prevail. 63 Thus, Bombay High Court in Amrut Ginning Factory v. Namobai Tanaji
Pawar,64observed:

60 . Shriram EPC Limited v. Rioglass Solar SA, AIR 2018 SC 4539: 2018 (11) SCALE 108.
61 . Sony Markose v. Ouseph Cherian, ILR 2018 (4) Kerala 1056: 2018 (4) KLJ 574; Indu Singh v. Prem
Chaudhary, 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 241: 2018 VIAD (Delhi) 233.
62 . The Act received the assent of the Governor General on March 21, 1908. It came into force with effect
from January I, 1909.
63 . Union of India v. Ramesh Ram, AIR 2010 SC 2691: (2010) 7 SCC 234.
64 . 2009 (6) Bom CR 237. See also, Vij Kamagar Sahakari Patsanstha Limited v. Ramkrushna Dhondiram
Thorat, 2009 (1) Bom CR 880: 2008 (110) Bom I-R 3560.

Copyrighted material
14 • Code of Civil Procedure

It is well settled principles of interpretation that all the provisions of the Code should be
interpreted harmoniously, but if the Rules are inconsistent with the sections, the former will
have to give way to the latter.
Sections 1 to 8 of the Code are preliminary in nature. Part I (Sections 9 to 35-B) and
Orders I to 20 of the (First) Schedule deal with suits. Section 9 enacts that a Civil Court has
jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless they are barred expressly or
impliedly.6566Whereas Section 10 provides for stay of suit—res sub judice, Section I I deals
with the well known doctrine of res judicata. 67 Part Il (Sections 36 to 74) and Order 21 cover
execution proceedings. The principles governing execution of decrees and orders are dealt
with in Sections 36 to 74 and Order 21. Order 21 is the longest Order covering 106 Rules.
Part Ill (Sections 75 to 78) and Order 26 make provisions as to the issue of Commissions.
Part VI (Sections 94 and 95) and Order 38 provide for arrest of a defendant and attachment
before judgment. Order 39 lays down procedure for issuing temporary injunction and passing
interlocutory orders. Order 40 deals with the appointment of receivers. Order 25 provides for
security for costs. Order 23 deals with withdrawal and compromise of suits. Order 22
declares effect of death, marriage or insolvency of a party to the suit.68
The Parts IV and V (Sections 79 to 93) and Orders 27 to 37 provide procedures for
special suits. The Part VI (Sections 94—95) deals with supplemental proceedings. The Parts
VII and VIII (Sections 96 to 115) and Orders 41 to 47 contain detailed provisions for appeals,
reference, review and revision. Part IX (116 to 120) deals with special provisions relating to
certain High Courts. The Part X (Sections 121 to 131) enables High Courts to frame Rules for
regulating their own procedure and the procedure of Civil Courts subject to their
superintendence. The Part XI (Sections 132 to 158) relates to miscellaneous proceedings. The
Explanation to Section 141 added by the Amendment Act of 1976 clarifies the expression
"proceedings" does not include proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6970 The
Section 144 embodies the doctrine of restitution and deals with the power of the court to
grant relief of restitution in case a decree is set aside or modified by a superior court. 70 The
Appendices of the Code contain Model Forms of Pleadings, Processes, Decrees, Appeals,
Execution proceedings, etc.

Development of the Code

1951 and 1956 Amendments
Since the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, there has been no significant
change in the Code till Indian independence. After the attainment of independence and the
65 . Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania, (2019) 3 SCC 692: 2019 (2) SCALE 492.
66 . SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. KS. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2019 SC 2691: 2019 (4)
SCALE 574.
67 . B. K. Pavitra v. The Union of India, AIR 2019 SC 2723: 2019 (8) SCALE 205.
68 . S. Sudhakar v. Syed Kareem, 2017 (2) ALD l: 2016 (6) ALT 135; Government of Orissa v. Ashok
Transport Agency, (2002) 9 SCC 28: 2002 (4) SCALE 340.
69 . However, the principles as stated in the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the writ proceedings.
see, Union of India v. Agarwal Iron Industries, (2014) 15 SCC 215: 2014 (13) SCALE 138.
70 . Rukmini A. Jadhav v. Shankar Bhau Patil, 2019 (3) ALLMR 886: 2019 (2) Mh LJ 228.

Copyrighted material
 Chapter 1 Theoretical Foundations of Code of Civil Procedure • 15

adoption of the Constitution of India, 71 judicial administration and the constitution of the law
courts remained fundamentally unchanged, except in matters such as the abolition of appeals
to the Privy Council, the constitution of the Supreme Court of India as the Supreme Court,
the conferment of writ jurisdiction on all High Courts, etc. The concept, structure and
organisation of courts, the substantive and procedural laws, the adversarial system of trial and
other proceedings and the function of judges and lawyers remained basically unaltered and
rooted in the common law traditions in contradiction to those prevailing in civil law or other
systems of law. However, within ten years of Indian independence, two important amending
Acts were enacted on the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, namely, the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1951 72 and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956 73 , which
mainly 74embodied certain changes necessitated by certain provisions of the Constitution of
India and the reorganisation of certain States.

1976 Amendment
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 was enacted, despite the 1951 and
1956 amendments some defects remained in the Code, 74 which worked satisfactorily
otherwise. In Ravula Sobba Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 75 the Supreme Court held
that its provisions should be interpreted as forming a complete Code by itself, exhaustive of
the matters dealt conclusively by it.76 In spite of its exhaustiveness, it cannot be said to deal
with all the matters that may come up for decision in the courts. Thus, it is not exhaustive of
all forms of procedure necessary to be used in the administration of justice. 77 It is wellsettled
that the Code is not exhaustive, 78 therefore should be construed liberally and as far as
possible, mere technical objections should not be allowed to defeat substantial justice. 79Thus,
in B. Rajendran v. State, 80 the Madras High Court held that the rule of construction for
interpretation is that one must examine the language of the statute, look for its natural
meaning, and not to see how the law previously stood.
The Law Commission in its various reports on "Reform of Judicial Administration"
indicated broad lines on which the Code should be revised, but left more detailed
examination of the revision to be undertaken distinctly. In 1976, after carefully considering
the recommendations of the Law Commission, the government decided to put forward the
71 . The Constitution of India was adopted on November 26, 1949.
72 . Gokaldas Naranji v. Dwarkadas Jethabhai, AIR 1952 Guj 99: AIR 1954 Guj 123.
73 . The Rule IA of Order 16 was inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure [Amendment) Act, 1956. See,
Mst. Tulsi Bai v. Chunilal, AIR 1964 Raj 243.
74 . For example, the "statement of objects and reasons" of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
1976 stated, inter-alia, that the amendment intended for minimising delay in the finality of adjudication.
See, Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai, AIR 2015 SC 2006: (2015) 6
scc 412.
75 . AIR 1956 SC 604: [1956] 1 SCR 577.
76 . Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, AIR 1971 SC 385: (1970) 2 SCC 484.
77 . State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction, AIR 2010 SC 1299: 2010 (3) SCALE 466.
78 . Terai Infrastructures Ltd. v. Robin Commodial Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 2 CALLT 190 (HC): 2017(4) CHN
(CAL) 349.
79 . Madhusudan Das Aga,wal v. Banaras Hindu University, 2015 (7) ADJ 361: 2015 (112) ALR 307.
80 . 2014 (2) I-LN 728 (Mad.): 2014 (3) CTC 446.

Copyrighted material
16 • Code of Civil Procedure

Bill for the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, keeping in view, inter alia, the
following considerations: (i) a litigant should get a fair trial in accordance with the accepted
principles of natural justice; (ii) every effort should be made to expedite the disposal of civil
suit and proceedings, so that justice may not be delayed, and (iii) the procedure should not be
complicated, and should, to the utmost extent possible, ensure a fair deal to the poorer
sections of the community who may not have the means to engage a pleader to defend their
cases.81The important changes made by the Amending Act 1976, are as follows:
I. The doctrine of res judicata being made more effective.
2. The power to transfer proceedings from a High Court in a State to any other High
Court conferred on the Supreme Court.
3. Interest for the post-decretal period in respect of liabilities arising out of
commercial transactions has been increased, in the cases of decrees for sum
exceeding < 10,000

81 . Statement of objects and reasons of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976.

Copyrighted material
 Chapter 1 Theoretical Foundations of Code of Civil Procedure • 17
•
to the contractual rate, or where there is no contractual rate, to the rate at which
money are lent by nationalised banks for commercial transactions.
4. The freedom from attachment of a portion of salary now available to a government
servant or a servant of a railway company or local authority. This protection has
been extended to all salaried employees.
5. The right to prefer an appeal against a decree passed in a suit of the nature
cognisable by a Court of Small Causes restricted in respect of cases in which the
amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed In such
cases, appeals are allowed only on questions of law.82
6. Second appeals are allowed only on such questions as are certified by the High
Court to be substantial questions of law.
7. It has been provided that there will be no further appeal against the decision of a
Single Judge of a High Court in a second appeal. 83
8. Section 132 provides that women, who, according to the customs and manners of
the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, shall be exempted from
personal appearance in courts. The seclusion of women being inconsistent with the
social philosophy on which Constitution of India is founded and having regard to
customs and manners prevailing at the present day, this Section is being omitted.
9. The period during which a member of a legislature cannot be arrested and detained
under a civil process increased from 14 to 40 days.
10. Provisions made to ensure that written statement and documents are filed without
delay.
l l . New Order 16-A has been inserted to provide for the attendance of prisoners in
courts for the purpose of giving evidence.
12. New Order 32-A has been inserted to provide a special procedure in litigation
concerning the affairs of a family.
13. The practice of passing preliminary and final decrees in mortgage suits and other
suits has been abolished. In such suits, there will be only one decree, so that there
may not be more than one appeal in a suit.
14. The scope of summary trails has been substantially widened. 84

82 . The definition of "decree" in Section 2(2) of the Code has been amended by omitting the words
"Section 47 or" by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) 1976. See, Jet Airways (India) Limited v.
Subrata Roy Sahara, 2011 (113) Bom LR 3835: 2012 (1) ALLMR 563.
83 . The Sections 3, 97, 97 (2) and 97 (3) has been amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment),
1976. see, Guntupalli Rama Subbayya v. Guntupalli Rajamma, AIR 1988 AP 226: 1988 (1) APLJ (HC)
79.
84 . The Order 41 Rule 23A has been inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) 1976 which
provides that where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case
otherwise than on a preliminary point, and the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered
necessary, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers as it has under Rule 23.

Copyrighted material
 Code of Civil Procedure
1999 and 2002 Amendments
Summary of Amendments
Although the amendments made in 1976 carried out drastic changes in the Sections, Orders
and Rules, the amendments were not found sufficient. Thus, in Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal,
85
the Supreme Court observed that the "the Code is not exhaustive as the legislature is
incapable of contemplating all possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation
and consequently for providing procedure for them". Justice Malimath Committee was
appointed by the government with a view to dispose of civil cases expeditiously. 86 In
pursuance of recommendations of the Committee, the Code was amended by the Amendment
Acts of 1999 and 2002. 8788 Important amendments made by the Acts of 1999 and 2002 may
be summarised thus:
l . In every plaint, facts shall be proved by an affidavit. 89
2. In several matters, such as issuing of summons, filing of written statement,
amendment of pleadings, production of documents, examination of witness,
pronouncement of judgments, preparation of decree, etc., time-limit is prescribed. 90
3. The Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for
their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may
reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for: (i) arbitration;
(ii) conciliation; (iii) judicial settlement including through Iok-adalat; or (iv)
mediation.
Thus, an alternative mode of settlement of disputes has been introduced.
4. Numbers of adjournments have been restricted.
5. A provision for recording of evidence by the Court Commissioner has been made.
6. Endless arguments are sought to be shortened through (i) empowering the Court to
fix time-limit for oral arguments; and (ii) permitting written arguments to be placed
on record by the parties.
7. A provision has been made for filing of appeal in the Court which passed the
decree.
8. Instituting of appeal against the judgment is allowed where the decree is not drawn
up.

85 . AIR 1962 SC 527: [1962] supp. (1) SCR 450.

86 . Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal v. Jugalkishor Chhaganlal Tapadia, 2015 (3) Mh LJ 121: 2015 (5) ALI-
MR 101.
87 . Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 46 of 1999 received the assent of the President on December
88 , 1999 and came into force with effect from July l, 2002. Likewise, the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act 22 of 2002 received the assent of the President on May 23, 2002 and came into force
with effect from July l, 2002.
89 . Tej Bahadur v. Fasiudeen, 2019 (1) ADJ 372: 2019 (133) ALR 423.
90 . The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 puts a limit of thirty days on the enlargement of
period in Section 148. The words "not exceeding thirty days in total" have been inserted with a view to
curtail procedural delay caused by any party to the suit or proceeding. Enlargement of time, whether one-
time or phased, cannot exceed thirty days. See, Nashik Municipal Corporation v. R. M. Bhandari, AIR
2016 SC 1090: (2016) 6 SCC 245.

Copyrighted material
 Chapter 1 Theoretical Foundations of Code of Civil Procedure • 19
9. Scope of first appeal, second appeal, letters patent appeal and revision has been
curtailed. 91

91 . Section IOOA of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999 and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. As per the provisions
of Section
IOOA where an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by the single
Judge of High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single Judge to the
High Court. See, Mohanlal Chandmal Phafat v. State Q/' Maharashtra, AIR 2018 Bom 164: 2018 (2) Bom
CR 257.

Copyrighted material