Essentials of Decree: In order that the decision of a court may be decree,

the following elements must be present:

1. There must be 'adjudication’

2. Such adjudication must be done in a suit
3. Rights of parties in controversy
4. Conclusive determination
5. Formal expression
1. There must be 'adjudication': For a decision of a court to be a decree, there must be an
adjudication, a judicial determination of the matter in dispute. Thus, a decision on the matter of
administrative nature or order dismissing a suit for default of appearance of parties cannot be
termed as decree as it does not judicially deal with matter in dispute. Supreme Court in Deep
Chand v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 5994 SC held that a decision on a matter of administrative
nature is not a decree.

2. Such adjudication must be done in a suit: It is necessary for the decree that adjudication must
be in a 'suit'. The expression 'suit' is not defined in the Code. In Hansraj Gupta v. Official
Liquidator of Dehradun-Mussorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd., AIR 5933 , the court defined 'suit'
as a civil proceeding instituted by presentation of a plaint. Thus, rejection of an application for
leave to sue in forma pauper is is not decree as there is a no plaint till application is granted.
However, under certain enactments provisions have been made to treat application as decree. In
such circumstances, since there is a specific provision in this regard, adjudication made on an
application will also be considered as 'decree'. They are also called statutory suits. For example,
proceedings under Indian Succession Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Guardians and Wards Act, etc
3. Rights of parties in controversy: The adjudication must determine the rights of the parties
in controversy with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in a suit. The word
'rights' means substantive rights of the parties and not merely procedural rights. The term
'parties' means parties to the suit, i.e., plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, an order on the
application by a third party who is a stranger to the suit is not a decree. Therefore, an order
dismissing an appeal for default, dismissing a suit when summons not served, dismissal of
application for non-prosecution etc. are not decrees because they do not determine the
rights of the parties in controversy.
4. Conclusive determination: Such determination must be of conclusive nature, i.e., final
as regard the court which passes it. Thus, an interlocutory order which does not decide
the rights of the parties finally is not a decree. The crucial point which requires to be
decided in such a case is whether the decision is final and conclusive in essence and
substance.

5. Formal expression: There must be formal expression of such adjudication. All the
requirements of form must be complied with as given in the manner provided under
Rule 6, 6A and 3 of Order 20 of C.P.C.. The decree follows the judgment and must be
drawn up separately.

In Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers, (6443) Supreme Court held
that the courts should take into consideration pleadings of the parties and the
proceedings leading up to the passing of the decree
Deemed decree:
The term 'deemed' is generally used to create a statutory fiction for the purpose of extending
the meaning which it does not expressly cover. Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Lalji
Rishi, AIR 6444 observed that whenever the legislature uses the word 'deemed' it implies that
the legislature conferred a particular status on a particular person or thing.

Under the Code, the definition of 'decree' under Section 2(2) provides that following orders of
the court shall be deemed to be decree:

Rejection of plaint under Order 3 Rule 11

Determination of questions under Section 144 (Restitution)

What are not decrees: Section 2(2) further clarifies that following orders are not decrees
within the meaning of 'decree' under Section 2(2):
(a)An order of dismissal or default.
(b)An adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from order which is specified under
Section 104 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code.
Classes of decree
The Code recognizes following classes of decrees under Section 2(2)
• Preliminary decree
• Final decree
• Partly preliminary and partly final decree

Preliminary decree: Explanation to Section 2(2) of the Code provides that where
adjudication decides the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in
controversy in the suit but it does not completely dispose of the suit, it is a preliminary
decree. A preliminary decree is passed in those cases in which the court has first to
adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and has then to stay its hands for the time being
until it is in a position to pass a final decree in the suit. In Paras Nath Rai v. State of Bihar,
(6456) 56 SC 646 Supreme Court held that a preliminary decree is only a state of working
out the rights of the parties which are to be finally adjudicated by a final decree and till
them, the suit continues.
Supreme Court in Shankar v. Chandrakant, (5995) held that preliminary decree is one which declares the
rights and liabilities of parties leaving the actual result to be worked out in further proceedings. For
example in case of partition, the first step is to determine the shares of coparceners and it amounts to
preliminary decree. The suit is not completely disposed of and the court will proceed further to determine
division of the property and its distribution as per metes and bounds.
Suits in which preliminary decree in passed: The Code provides for passing of preliminary decree in
following suits:
1. Suit for possession and mesne profits (Order 20, Rule 12).
2. Administrative suits (Order 20, Rule 13)
3. Suits for pre-emption (Order 20, R. 14)
4. Suits for dissolution of partnership (Order 20, Rule 15)
5. Suit for accounts between principal and agent (Order 20, Rule 16)
6. Suit for partition and separate possession (Order 20, Rule 14)
3. Suit for foreclosure of mortgage (Order 34, Rule)
4. Suit for sale of mortgaged property (Order 34, Rule)
5. Suit for redemption of mortgage (Order 34, Rule 3)

Supreme Court in N.M. Verappa v. Canara Bank, AIR 5998 observed that the above list is not exhaustive. It
means the court may pass a preliminary decree in cases not expressly provided under the Code.
Number of preliminary decree in a suit:
As regards partition suits, the Supreme Court in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal, AIR 5967 SC, wherein it had
been held that there is nothing in the Code which prohibits passing of more than one preliminary decree,
if circumstances justify the same.

Appeal from preliminary decree: An appeal against a preliminary decree can be preferred under Section
56 of the Code. However, Section 53 provides that if such appeal is not made, the person shall be excluded
from disputing its correctness in any appeal preferred against final decree. The object of Section 53 is to
prevent the preliminary questions being asked at the later stage when the suit has been completely
decided. Final decree is dependent on preliminary decree. So if in appeal against the preliminary decree,
the preliminary decree is set aside, the final decree falls. (Sital Prasad Saxena v. Kishori Lal, AIR 5967
Final decree
A final decree, as per Explanation to Section 2(2), is the decree which completely disposes of the suit and
finally settles all questions in controversy between parties. It can become final in following ways:

Where decree completely disposes of the suit.

Where within prescribed period, no appeal is filed against the decree.

The term 'final decree' used in this section is in the first sense i.e. completely disposes of the suit and
settles all questions in controversy. There is nothing left to be decided. In Shankar v. Chandrakant, (5995)
3 SCC Supreme Court held that it is a settled law that more than one final decree can be passed. For
example, a decree passed for a sum representing past and future mesne profit at a particular rate
without further inquiry is final decree.

More then one final decree: Generally, there is only one final decree in a suit. However, if two or more
causes of action are joined then there can be more than one final decree. Supreme Court has clarified in
Shankar v. Chandrakant, (1555) 3 SCC that there can be more than one final decree.
Partly preliminary and partly final

Such kinds of decrees are passed in certain cases for example suit for possession and mesne profits. In
such cases the court directs the possession of land and orders enquiry into the profits. The first part of
the decree is final whereas the second part is preliminary. Since the decree is one it is partly preliminary
and partly final.