1

Order X CPC
Examination of parties by the court

Rule 1
 Ascertainment whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or
denied. -At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall ascertain from
each party or his pleader whether he admits or denies such allegations
of fact as are made in the plaint or written statement (if any) of the
opposite party, and as are not expressly or by necessary implication
admitted or denied by the party against whom they are made. The
Court shall record such admissions and denials.
 Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Another [2012 4
SCC 307] -First hearing of the suit' -- Meaning of -- Hearing
presupposes existence of an occasion which enables the parties to be
heard by the Court in respect of the cause -- Hearing, should be first
in point of time after the issues have been framed -- Date of 'first
hearing of a suit' is ordinarily understood to be the date on which the
Court proposes to apply its mind to the contentions raised by the
parties and also to the documents filed by them for the purpose of
framing the issues which are to be decided in the suit . [Also see
1993 KHC 990, AIR 1982 SC 816, AIR 1987 SC 197]
 Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi [AIR 2023 SC 5652] - Supreme Court
issues directions -- All Courts at Districts and Talukas shall ensure
after the pleadings are complete, parties should be called upon to
appear on the day fixed as indicated in O.10 and record the
admissions and denials and Court shall direct the parties to the suit to
opt for either mode of the settlement outside the Court as specified in
sub-Section (1) of S.89

Rule 1A

 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. and Another v. Cherian Varkey

Construction Co. (P) Ltd. [2010 8 SCC 24] - O.10 R.1A - Reference
to ADR processes under -- Stage at which the court should explore
whether the matter should be referred to ADR processes, is after the
pleadings are complete, and before framing the issues, when the
matter is taken up for preliminary hearing for examination of parties
under O.10 of the Code -- Once evidence is commenced, the court
will be reluctant to refer the matter to the ADR processes lest it
becomes a tool for protracting the trial -- Reference to adjudicatory
ADR processes (arbitration or conciliation) can be made only with
 2

consent of all parties -- As appellant was not agreeing to arbitration,

matter remanded to trial court for deciding upon appropriate non
adjudicatory ADR process.

Rule 2
 2002 4 SCC 468 - O.10, R.4 - Appearance -- Order for personal
appearance -- O.10, Civil Procedure Code is an enabling provision
providing that the Court at the first hearing of the suit shall ascertain
from each party about their pleadings -- It does not in any manner
place any bar on the powers of the Court to seek clarification from
any party in an appropriate case, at any date earlier than one fixed for
framing of issues so as to advance the interest of justice -- It would
not be in violation of O.10, Civil Procedure Code or in conflict
thereof
 AIR 1977 SC 2421 -The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
meaningful -- not formal -- reading of the plaint it is manifestly
vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to
sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C.
taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And,
if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in
the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under
Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law
suits.
 3

Order XI CPC
Discovery and Inspection
 P. Balan v. Central Bank of India, Calicut [AIR 2000 Ker. 24]
"The object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party
to require information from his opponent for the purpose of
maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary.
The answering of the interrogatories might save expenses and shorten
the litigation of enabling a party to obtain from the other side
information as to material facts regarding the questions in dispute or
issues raised or to obtain admission of facts which the plaintiff has to
prove on any issue.”
 If more than one defendant, Specifically state which defendant should
answer which question.
 Interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the
suit shall be deemed irrelevant.

Conditions for interrogatories

1. It should be in writing.
2. With the leave of the court.
3. Either party has right to do so.
4. Answer must be sought from opposite parties.

 Rule 104 and 106 of civil rules of practice.

 2019 5 KHC 918 - An application for leave to deliver interrogatories
shall contain at the foot thereof the proposed interrogatories also. A
single application for leave containing interrogatories at the foot in
Form 2 in Appendix C is sufficient. The Court can grant leave, only
after examining the interrogatories. A separate order granting leave,
in advance, cannot be passed, in advance, without examining the
interrogatories. The Court shall grant leave or reject the application,
after examining each interrogatory and thereafter direct the other
party to answer the questions to which leave granted, by a single
order.
 What questions are relevant as interrogatories?
 Raj Narain v Indira Nehru Gandhi [AIR 1972 SC 1302] -
Questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not
necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are
relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in
question". The interrogatories served must have, reasonably close
 4

connection with "matters in question". Viewed thus, interrogatories 1

to 18 as well as 31 must be held to irrelevant.
 1988 1 KLT 297 - Interrogatories -- Where an account is claimed or
question of account is claimed or question of account arises, the
interrogatories as to details of accounts may be allowed -- The Court
at this stage is not concerned with the ultimate entitlement of the
plaintiff for the amount.
 1989 KHC 2259- Interrogatories may be administered by a party to
his opponent to obtain admissions from him to facilitate the proof of
his own case -- The party to whom interrogatories are administered
must answer them in writing and on oath -- The fact that the party has
other means of proving the fact in question is not a ground for
refusing interrogatories -- Interrogatories are also relevant for the
purpose of adjudication of the issues, if they relate to the offending
articles published in the Illustrated Weekly of India -- Unless these
interrogatories are served and truthfully answered, it will not be
possible for the plaintiff to prove the facts, otherwise except upon
calling for production of the connected documents
 2003 KHC 348 - Defendant can be allowed to interrogate a
codefendant if there is some question or an issue between them.
 2009 KHC 6985 - From the perusal of the aforementioned statement
and the nature of interrogatories it becomes clear that the defendant
petitioner had only made an effort to extract something which he
could not do in course of cross examination -- Questions which are
put only to test the credibility of a person are not allowed as
interrogatories although they may be asked in cross examination --
Interrogatories filed by the petitioner were beyond the scope of O.11,
R.1, CPC
 2017 (1) KLT 726 - It is not permissible to have interrogatories with
respect to matters which would fall outside the purview of dispute
involved in the suit. Trial Court is bound to apply its mind with
respect to the nature of interrogatories and whether it would come
under the matter in dispute in the suit
 2011 3 KLT 280 - merely for the purpose of serving interrogatories,
a person cannot be impleaded as additional defendant, if he is neither
a proper or necessary party

Form of interrogatories.
 Form 2 Appendix C

 2022 LiveLaw Del 284-

 2019 (1) KLT 836 - Even if both the reliefs were prayed for
simultaneously, the court below ought to have considered the relief
 5

under R.11 of O.11 of the C.P.C. and dismissed the relief under R.21
of O.11 of the C.P.C. Instead of it, the Court below dismissed
both. Where an application is filed, seeking two reliefs and both the
reliefs cannot be considered together simultaneously, only one alone
can be allowed or rejected, as the latter is consequent on the former
and it can be considered subsequently only, it is just and proper to
consider the first one and reject the other.
 AIR 1972 SC 2379 - interrogatories can be issued under O.33
proceedings.

Rule 12
 what are grounds on which the opposite party can object for
production of document?
1. Exclusively party’s evidence
2. Claim of privilege.
3. Injurious to public interest.

 1980 KHC 7 -O.11 R.12 - The expression "matter in question" means

a question or issue in dispute in the action and not the thing about
which such dispute arises -- Discovery of documents.
 2013 1 KLT 591 - Although there are differences in the manner in
which pleas are to be raised and orders are to be passed under R.12
and R.14 of O.11 CPC, the words "relating to any matter in question
therein" occurring in R.12 and "relating to any matter in question in
such suit" seen in R.14 of O.11 CPC convey the very same idea. In
both provisions, it is essentially required that the document to be
discovered or produced must be one relating to the matter in question
in the suit.

Rule 14- Production of Documents.

 Ingrients to invoke Rule 14

 2013 1 KLT 591 - the power under O.11 R.14 CPC can be invoked
by the Court on the application of any party to the suit and at any
stage during the pendency of the suit.
 AIR 1960 Ker 201- The very fact that a party is unable to plead
except in general terms, is in many cases the very reason why he
should have discovery and inspection from the other party. It is good
practice and good sense that where the defendant knows the facts and
the plaintiffs do not, the defendant should give discovery, before the
plaintiffs deliver particulars.

Rule 15
 6

 AIR 2005 SC 3353 - The stipulation in O.11 R.15 confining the

inspection of documents "at or before the settlement of issues" instead
of "at any time" is also nothing but directory. It does not mean that
the inspection cannot be allowed after the settlement of issues.
 AIR 1964 SC 1249.
 Rule 111- Civil rules of practice -A party shall be at liberty to inspect
and obtain copy of any document filed in court.

Order
The petition is allowed. The petitioner can inspect the document on ... at
... PM in the presence of CMO.

 2016 (1) KLT 991

 Rule 111 to Rule 115 of Civil rules of practice.

Rule 21
 Disobedience should be wilful.
 Yusuff v. Central Bank of India [1993 (2) KLT 684] - Mere failure
of the party is not sufficient to invoke the rule and the party should be
guilty of contumacious conduct or there is a willful attempt to
disregard the order of the court. Held : The principle governing the
courts exercise of its discretion under 0.11 R.21 is that it is only when
the default is wilful and as a last resort that the court should dismiss
the suit or strike out the defence, when the party is guilty of such
contumacious conduct or there is a wilful attempt to disregard the
order of the court that the trial of the suit is arrested. The position
therefore is that before invoking R.21 for dismissal of the suit or for
striking out the defence, the court has to ascertain whether the party
was guilty of contumacious conduct or whether there was wilful
attempt on his part to disregard the order of the court.
 Kunjumol George and another v. Jose Valiyaveedan [2006 (4)
KLT 130] -Court has to take abundant caution -- A suit cannot be
lightly thrown out or defence struck off without adequate reasons,
unless the default of the party is wilful.
 Prabhakaran v. Sajini and Others [2010 (1) KHC 142] -Mere
failure of a party who was directed to answer interrogatories cannot
compel the Court to pass an order to strike out his defence -- Court
has to examine whether there was obstinacy amounting to wilful and
deliberate disobeyance of the order of the Court which warrants
striking of his defence.
 M/s Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. Trilok Nath Mahajan [AIR
1978 SC 1436] - Power for dismissal of a suit or striking out of the
defence under O.11 R.21 should be exercised only where the
 7

defaulting party fails to attend the hearing or is guilty of prolonged or

inordinate and in-excusable delay which may cause substantial or
serious prejudice to the opposite party An order striking out the
defence under O.XI R.21 of the Code should, therefore, not be made
unless there has been obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the
defendant or wilful attempt to disregard the order of the court.
 Synergy Homes Ltd. v. Joshy John [ 2011 (4) KHC 512] Extreme
step of dismissing the suit for non-compliance of the orders of the
Court can be taken only in extreme circumstances -- Trial Court has
to consider whether the stand of the defendant is obstinate so that the
consequence under R.21 of O.11 of the Code should follow -- Merely
for the reason of non-compliance with an order the suit cannot be
dismissed invoking R.21 of O.11 of the Code.
 Ismail Pillai Mohammed Haneefa v. Mohammedali Vaidyan
Ibrahim Kunju Vaidyan [2007 (3) KLT 503] - The test laid down
under Rule 21 is whether the default is wilful if it is on the part of the
plaintiff it entails in the dismissal of the suit. Such an order ought not
to be made unless court is satisfied that he was wilfully withholding
information, refusing to answer the interrogatories or withholding the
documents which he ought to discover. In such an event, plaintiff
must take the consequence of having his suit dismissed. On the other
hand, if it is the case of the defendant his defence is liable to be struck
off and he is to be placed in the same position as if he had not
defended the suit.

 Order XI rule 21 -Not applicable to order under Rule 14.

 Ismail Pillai Mohammed Haneefa v. Mohammedali Vaidyan
Ibrahim Kunju Vaidyan [2007 (3) KLT 503] - The power provided
under Rule 21 can be invoked only within the ambit of the said
section. Such an order could be passed only if the court had earlier
passed an order under Rule 2 or 11 to answer the interrogatories, or an
order under Rule 12 to make discovery on oath of the documents or
an order for inspection of documents under Rule 15 of Order XI of
the Code. An order passed by the court to the defendant to produce
such document in his possession is only an order under Rule 14 of
Order XI. Its non-compliance will not visit the stringent order
provided under Rule 21 of Order XI of the Code.
 Gokulam Chits and Finance Company (P) Ltd. v. P. Subhash
Chandran [2022 (6) KHC 212] - R.21 has no application to an order
under R.14 - Court cannot dismiss suit for want of prosecution or
strike off defence as if the defendant had not defended the
proceedings, when there is non-compliance of an order directing the
party to produce certain documents under R.14.
 8

 Thundiyil Abdurahiman v. Asharaf Kalapeedikayil [2019 2 KLT

282] - Order XI Rule 21 expressly provides for enforcement of only
certain kind of orders arising under Chapter XI of the Code. This
provision does not take within its umbrella an order of production of
document passed by the court under Order XI Rule 14. In my opinion,
having regard to the scheme and setting of Chapter XI of the Code,
there is a conscious exclusion by the legislature of orders arising
under Order XI Rule 14 from the province of Order XI Rule 21. The
resultant legal conclusion emerging from the forgoing discussion is
that the court ordering production of document invoking its power
under Order XI Rule 14 does not acquire any power either under
Order XI Rule 21 and Section 151 or any other provisions of the
Code, to strike out the defence or dismiss a suit.
 Kerala Financial Corporation, Tvm and Another v. M/s. Mas
Hotel, Ernakulam [2020 (2) KLT 372] - The power under Order XI
Rule 21 of Code is strictly meant to be invoked only in the three
situations enumerated under Rules 2, 12 and 15 of Order XI of the
Code and cannot be invoked in any other context.
 Ajay Kumar D. Amin v. Air France [2016 12 SCC 566] - Non
production of relevant document -- Failure by a party in spite of the
order for discovery to produce account books which ought to have
been produced or should have explained the non production raises a
presumption that the contents were unfavourable to the party.

 Can a pleading be struck out under O.XI Rule 21 ?

 Devassy and Another v. Abdulla Koya Haji [2010 2 KLT 358]-
Striking out of pleadings is governed by O.6 R.16 Code and striking
out defence dismissal of suit under Order XI R.21 of the Code. In the
present case, striking out pleadings under O.6 R.16 is totally
inapplicable for dismissing the suit. Striking out a defence or
dismissing the suit for non compliance with an order for discovery
under Order XI R.21 of the Code can be proceeded only after an
opportunity is extended to the party who has not complied with the
order of discovery, inspection or furnishing of answers as directed.
 9

Order XII CPC

Admissions

 Vikrant Kapila v. Pankaja Panda [AIR 2023 SC 5579]- To

constitute a valid admission in pleading, the said admission should be
unequivocal, unconditional, and unambiguous, and the admission
must be made with an intention to be bound by it. Admission must be
valid without being proved by adducing evidence and enabling the
opposite party to succeed without trial.
 Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar [(2022) 10 SCC 496] -Order XII
Rule 6- Power is discretionary which should be only exercised when
specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are
on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of
Order XII Rule 6.
 Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi [AIR 2023 SC 5652] - The counsels
representing the parties may be enlightened of the provisions of Order
XI and Order XII so as to narrow down the scope of dispute and it
would be also the onerous responsibility of the Bar Associations and
Bar Councils to have periodical refresher courses and preferably by
virtual mode.

Rule 6 - Judgment on admissions.

 Rules 182 to 194 Civil Rules of practice.
 AIR 1999 SC 3381-
 Surendran CK v. Kunjumoosa [2023 7 KHC 257] -
 Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan
Rao [AIR 2023 SC 3574 ]- Expression 'otherwise' mentioned
in sub R.1 of R.6 of the O.12, is not confined to pleadings but also
includes documents filed along with the complaint or main pleading
or other materials subsequently brought on the record which are
admitted by the other party -- Matter of record that is not denied and
contains facts that can lead the Court to draw a decree is sufficient for
the Court to do so and, by its judgment, direct decree of the suit
wholly or partly.
 AIR 1999 SC 3381 -
 AIR 1956 SC 593 -
 2000 7 SCC 120 -
 10

 AIR 2005 SC 4138- O.12 R.6 - Suit having been partly decreed on
admission, could subsequently be dismissed on the ground of
limitation for the remaining amount.
 2010 (4) KHC 688 - Trial Court passing decree based on the
admission by defendant -- Defendants filing appeal -- Maintainability
of -- Held, no appeal lie from a decree passed on the consent of
parties.
 2015 (8) SCC 428- Wide discretion of Court to pass a judgment at
any stage of the suit on the basis of admission of facts made in the
pleading or otherwise without waiting for determination of any other
question -- There can be more than one decree that may be passed at
different stages of the same suit -- While exercising power of passing
judgment on admission, Court must keep the matter pending for
adjudication so far as other issues are concerned.
 11

Order XIII CPC

Production, Impounding and Return of Documents
Rule 1
 Document shall be produced along with pleadings.
 The originals shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, if
copy is produced with pleadings. [Rule 1 (1)]
 Not applicable in the case of document used for confrontation.
 If the document produced for confrontation in cross examination.
1. Direct the parties to produce a document list.
2. Serve a copy to opposite side.
 Bagai Construction v. M/s Gupta Building Material Store [AIR 2013
SC 1849] - Hearing concluded and suit reserved for judgment --
Plaintiff filing application for production of document and for
recalling witness -- Whether can be allowed -- Documents were in the
custody of plaintiff, but not placed till the date of filing of application
-- Plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications, in order to
overcome lacuna in the plaint, pleadings and evidence
 Madanlal v. Shyamlal [2002 KHC 1101] - Power under O.13 R.2
CPC could be exercised liberally and that "goods cause" requires
lesser degree of proof than that of "sufficient cause". (Re. Arjun
Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Others, AIR 1964 SC 993).
 Bhanumathi v. K. R. Sarvothaman and Others [2010 4 KLT 809]-
Defendants producing certain documents at the time of hearing of the
suit -- Whether can be admitted in evidence -- Held, Court has power
to receive in evidence even at the time of hearing of the suit
documents which ought to have been produced along with the plaint
or written statement -- Nevertheless, a party cannot claim a right to
produce such documents at the time of hearing.
 Bhima Jewellery and Diamonds (P) Ltd. v. O. Sandeep Kumar
[2020 5 KLT 40]- No Court can refuse a document being put to a
witness during cross examination merely for the reason that it had not
been produced earlier or not produced as per the manner in which it
ought to have been normally produced. The law thus indubitably
entitles a party to contradict a witness for the opposite side with a
document not produced earlier or included in the list filed along with
the plaint or the written statement respectively. This is rendered
irrefragable since O.7 R.14(4), O.8 R.1A(4) and O.13 Rule l(3)(a)
carves an express exception to documents produced to cross examine
the witness on the rival side
 12

 Documents shall be marked under Rule 128 of Civil Rules of

Practice.
 Objection of marking of document is to decided then and there.
 Not applicable to question relating to nature of document.
 AIR 2020 SC 1140

Order
[.... document shown to the witness by counsel for
plaintiff/defendant. Marking of the document was objected on the
ground that document is ________ The objection is sustainable/ not
sustainable in law. Hence the document is marked as ]

 Manager Sai Service Station Limited,Ors v. Dileep Ganesh [2022

(1) KHC 700]- Unregistered lease deeds cannot be pressed into
service to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or
interest in or to the property comprised in the document and that such
a lease deed creates only month to month tenancy except for the
collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of his
possession.

Rule 3
 Jai Prakash Pandit v. Most. Sushila Devi [2020 KHC 4153]-
Petition for exhibiting certified copy of sale deed. Purpose is for
establishing genuineness of thumb impression of original defendant
on compromise petition. But original thumb impression of deceased
defendant, owner of suit property not found on certified copy of sale
deed. Hence document cannot establish genuineness of signature of
defendant on compromise petition.
 Santhakumari v. Raghavan Unni [2014 (4) KLT 559]- Unattested
will produced -rejected. Under R.3 of O.13 CPC, the Court has ample
power to weed out such inadmissible document, or a document which
is not a valid document at all in the eye of law.
 Rev. Noble Philip v. Nevin Noble (Minor)[2020 4 KLT 683] -
Document which is otherwise inadmissible cannot be taken in
evidence only because its admissibility is not objected to. [followed
AIR 1966 SC 1457]

Rule 4
 Raman Pillai v. Kumaran Parameswaran [AIR 2002 Ker 133] -
O.13 R.4 - Requisite endorsements by officer -- Failure in doing so --
The act of failing to make necessary endorsement on documents,
proved and admitted in evidence, by the presiding officer is very
severely commented upon and is considered to be depreciated.
 13

 AIR 2023 Cal 66 - The expression "admitted in evidence" would

mean the act of allowing the document to be taken on record as part
of the evidence but it must be let in as a result of judicial
determination of the question whether it can be admitted in evidence
or not.
 Cir 9/1980 - Guidelines to marking of exhibits.
 Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. v. Surendra Oil &
Dal Mills (Refineries [2010 8 SCC 423] - The trial court
should not have "marked" as exhibits the Xerox copies of the
certificates of registration of trade mark in face of the objection raised
by the defendants. It should have declined to take them on record as
evidence and left the plaintiff to support its case by whatever means it
proposed rather than leaving the issue of admissibility of those copies
open and hanging, by marking them as exhibits subject to objection of
proof and admissibility The appellant, therefore, had a legitimate
grievance in appeal about the way the trial proceeded.

Mere marking of document does not dispense proof.

 Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam [AIR
1971 SC 1865] - Mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense
with the proof of documents -- Proof of the plaintiffs' books of
account became important because the plaintiffs' accounts were
impeached and falsified by the defendants' case of larger payments
than those admitted by the plaintiffs -- Irresistible inference arises that
the plaintiff's books would not have supported the plaintiffs
 Also see
1. AIR 1966 SC 1457
2. AIR 2000 SC 2629
3. AIR 2003 SC 4548
4. 2010 4 SCC 491
5. 2013 10 SCC 758
 1957 TC 272- When a document marked in IA, it does not means that
the document is admitted in evidence.
 AIR 2003 SC 4548 - if photocopy admitted in evidence without
objection cannot be challenged in Appeal Stage.


