Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > The Code of Civil Procedure > Object of Civil Procedure Code
In this article, we shall study the historical background and the object of civil procedure code.
Historical Background:
The first Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in 1859 (Act VII of 1859) by the Committee headed by Mr. John Romily. It was amended in 1877 and, subsequently, in 1882, however, those amendments did not serve the purpose, therefore, the present Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in 1908. It was drafted by the Committee headed by Sir Earle Richards. Committee before submitting the draft to the West Minister Parliament travelled India, read its history and ancient texts, and then knew the traditions and culture of this country, and draft legislation was prepared, keeping all such things in view.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) came into force with effect from January 1, 1909. There are three major amendments. The object of amendments was to keep procedural law in tune with the changing needs of society and even technological advances.
- The Amendment Act (104 of 1976) came into force with effect from February 1, 1977 (except Sections 12, 13, and 50). Section 12 and 50 come into force on May 1, 1977 and Section 13 came into force on July 1, 1977.
- The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 came into force from July 1, 2002.
- The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 came into force from July 1, 2002.
The Object of Civil Procedure Code:
The word CODE signifies ‘a systematic collection of statutes, a body of laws so arranged as to avoid inconsistency and overlapping‘. The Preamble of the Code states that the object of the Act is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature. The main aim of the CPC is to facilitate justice and seek an end to the litigation rather than provide any form of punishment and penalties. The Civil Procedure Code directs each activity in civil courts and the gatherings previously it till the execution of the degree and order.
In Administrator General of Bengal v. Prem Lal Mullick ILR (1895) 22 Cal 788 (PC) and Mahant Shantha Nand Gir Chela v. Mahant Basu Devanand, AIR 1930 All 225 (230) FB case, the Court observed that to consolidate law means to collect, statutory law relating to a particular subject and to bring it down to date in order that it may form a useful Code applicable to circumstances existing at the time when the consolidation Act is enacted.
In Kapildeo Prasad v. Ramanand Prasad, AIR 2007 Pat 1 case, the Patna High Court the Court observed that CPC is a complete code in itself. Once proceedings are initiated under the Code, rights, and remedies have to be looked thereunder.
In Prem Lal Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, AIR 2007 SC 1247 case, the Court observed that the code consolidates and amends laws relating to Courts of Civil Judicature. It also deals with substantive rights but mainly aims to consolidate the law relating to civil courts and procedures.
In Saiyad Mohammad Bakar v. Abdul Habib Hasan Arab AIR 1998 SC 1624 case, the Court opined that procedural law is always subservient to substantive and is in aid to justice. Nothing can be given by a procedural law what is not sought to be given by substantive law and nothing can be taken away by the procedural law what is given by the substantive law.
Extent and Applicability
The Code is applicable to the whole country except –
- The State of Jammu and Kashmir
- The state of Nagaland and the tribal areas
Through the amendment of 1976, the provision has also been extended to scheduled areas.
In Westarly Dkhar v. Sehekaya Lyngdoh, (2015) 4 SCC 292 case the Court held that courts in such areas (exempted areas) shall be guided by the spirit of the Code and would not be bound by the letter of CPC.
Retrospective Operation
The principle of interpretation of statutes that procedural laws are well-settled is always retrospective in operation unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Their provisions will already apply to the proceedings commenced at the time of enactment. This is so because no can have a vested right in forms of procedure.
In Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Chaudhry, AIR 1957 SC 540 case, the Court held that the CPC is not retrospective in operation.
Interpretation of the Act:
In Sangram Singh v. Election Trbunal, AIR 1955 SC 425 (429) case, the Court held that the function of adjective law is to facilitate justice and further its ends.In
In RMD Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628 (631) case, the Supreme Court observed that a statute is to be construed according “ to the intention of them that make it”. The duty of the Judicature is “to act upon the true intention of the Legislature – the mens or sentential legis”.
In District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron & Steel Co., AIR 2001 SC 3134 (3152) case, the Court held that if a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the Legislature.
In Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484 (488) case, the Court held that a “hypertechnical view” should not be adopted by the court in interpreting procedural law.
In Ghanshyam Dass v. Dominion of India, AIR 1984 SC 1004 (1010) case, the Court observed that our laws of procedure are based on the principle that, as far as possible, no proceedings in the court of law should be allowed to be defeated on mere technicalities. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore must be interpreted in a manner so as to subserve and advance the cause of justice rather than defeat it.
In The State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari, AIR 1976 SC 1177 case, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope of the procedural law, observed “We must always remember that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. Where the non- compliance, tho’ procedural, will thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But, grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After, all Courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities.
In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 case, the Court observed that substantial justice has to be preferred upon the procedural technicalities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India returned the finding as under ”When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.”
In Zolba v. Keshao, AIR 2008 SC 2099 case, the Court observed that the use of the word ‘shall’ is ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature of the provision but having regard to the context in which it is used or having regard to the intention of the legislation, the same can be construed as directory.
In next article, we shall study the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure.
For More Articles on the Code of Civil Procedure Click Here