The term Plaint has not been defined in the Code. However, it can be defined as a statement of claim by presentation of which the suit is instituted. It is pleading of the plaintiff. Thus, it is a legal document which contains the written statement of the plaintiff’s claim. It is the first step towards the initiation of a suit. Through the help of plaint, the plaintiff narrates or describes the cause of action and related information which is considered as essential from the viewpoint of the suit.  Order VII Rules 10, 10A, and 10B of the Civil Procedure Code, deals with the return of plaint. The CPC empowers the civil courts to return the plaint to the plaintiff if the court believes that the plaint is not properly filed or any suit presented before it has no jurisdiction to try it.

CPC provides that the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Once the Court has held that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction, it should not have dismissed the suit but is bound to return it for presentation to proper Court. The returned plaint will start afresh when it is presented to the proper court. The freshly filed plaint in the proper court is not the continuation of the plaint presented in the improper court. The order of the court relating to return of the plaint is appealable.

Return is different from rejection and it needs to be noted. Return of plaint does not connote that the plaint had mistaken or that the rules for drafting the plaint were not conformed to. It simply means that the court is not empowered to try the suit for which the plaint is filed. On the contrary, the plaint is rejected if the essential requirements of a plaint are not provided in the plaint or if the certain elements are vague and ambiguous.

Grounds for Return of Plaint:

The court shall return a plaint on the following grounds:

• Court has no jurisdiction, or
• There is a valid objection to jurisdiction

According to Order VII Rule 10 (1), subject to the provisions of Rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Thus, according to Order VII Rule 10(1) of CPC, a plaint is returned on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction with the concerned court.

The court can lack jurisdiction on three occasions mentioned below;

• Territorial Jurisdiction
• Pecuniary Jurisdiction
• Subject matter Jurisdiction

For example, a plaint is filed in the city civil court by A against his employer for unlawful retrenchment from a job. Since there are specific labour courts to deal with these cases, the city civil court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudge and hence, plaint can be returned by the court. Under this rule, the court can return the plaint for lack of jurisdiction but the plaintiff has every right to file the plaint again in the appropriate forum.

In Kallu v. Phudan, AIR 1946 All 488 case, the Court held that where a suit filed in a revenue court is not triable by that court, the court should not dismiss the suit, but return the plaint to be presented to, the proper court.

In Hanamanthappa v. Chandrashekhrappa, (1997) 9 SCC 688 case, the Court held that on the return of plaint, the suit should be instituted when plaint is presented in the proper court. It will not be regarded as a continuation of the old suit. It will be treated as a fresh plaint subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court-fees.

In Gopi Krishna v. Avil Bose, AIR 1965 Cal 59 case, the Calcutta High Court said that “at any stage of suit” must mean at any stage of the suit before judgment therein is delivered.

In Visweswara v. Nair, (1912) 35 Mad 567 case, If court has no jurisdiction, it should return the plaint even though the claim is undervalued; and when presented to the proper court, the later court is bound to give credit for the fee levied by the former court.

Explanation attached to the rule states that “For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-Rule.”

If the Court has jurisdiction over some of the causes of action and thus has jurisdiction over a portion of the plaint there should be no reason why it cannot allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint to lop off those portions beyond its grip and proceed with the portions within its grasp. Where the Court finds that the plaint comprises causes of action within its jurisdiction as well as causes of action outside its jurisdiction, neither the suit can be dismissed as a whole nor the plaint can be returned as a whole.

In Smt. Sheela Adhikari v. Rabindra Nath Adhikari, AIR 1988 Cal. 273 case, the court held that the plaint, if it is to be returned, must be returned either as a whole or not at all and it is not for the Court to make a dissection of the plaint and then to retain a part and to return a part.

In Secretary of State v. Natabar, AIR 1927 Pat 254 case, a suit against two defendants, cognizable by a civil court as against the first and by the revenue court as against the second was filed in a civil court. The Patna High Court, directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the revenue court, and that a copy of it should be  retained on the record for trial of the suit against the first defendant.

In Latu v. Rani Mahalaxmi Bai, AIR 1942 All 130 case, the Allahabad High Court indicated two alternatives: either to keep original plaint on the record and give a certified copy for presentation to the revenue court, or other proper court or dismiss that part of the suit which is beyond its jurisdiction and proceed to try the rest or strike out the bad part under Order VI Rule 16.

Procedure for Returning the Plaint:

The procedure for returning the plaint depends upon two circumstances. First, where the court in the initial hearings identify that it does not have the jurisdiction to try the case and it feels that the plaint needs to be returned and second, where the defendant has appeared and after which the court believes that plaint needs to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.

Case 1: Where the court in the initial hearings identify that it does not have the jurisdiction to try the case and it feels that the plaint needs to be returned

In this case, the Order VII Rule 10(2) mandates the court to endorse the following particulars on the plaint:

• Date on which the plaint was initially presented by the plaintiff.
• Date on which the plaint is being returned by the court. The returning date is not the one where the court formed the opinion but when the court actually returned the plaint.
• Cause title, i.e., the details of the party which presented the plaint.
• Reasons that compelled the court to return the plaint

In Moneys Transports v. Tanjore, AIR 1979 Mad 196 case, the Court held that the requirement of sub-rule 2 are mandatory and without the endorsement required by the sub-rule, the plaint cannot be returned and cannot be presented to the proper court. This means that the proceedings for the return of the plaint came to an end only when an endorsement was actually made on the plaint. Then only can the plaint be said to be ready for being returned for presentation to the proper Court.

Case2: where the defendant has appeared and after which the court believes that plaint needs to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.

Order VII Rule 10A applies to the situation where the plaint is returned after the defendant(s) has/have appeared before the court. The following list summarises the procedure that needs to be followed while returning the plaint:

1. The court must intimate the plaintiff through registered post or any authorized manner that the plaint is to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The plaintiff needs to appear before the court either personally or through his counsel
3. The plaintiff is required to inform the court as to where the plaintiff proposes to file the new plaint after it is returned by this court.
4. The court may fix the date of appearance of plaintiff and defendant before the competent court where the new plaint is to be filed.
5. The court may, at the request of the plaintiff, serve notices to the plaintiff and defendant requiring them to appear before the competent Court and intimating them of the return of plaint.
6. This notice shall serve as summon and no new summon will be required to be issued by the court where the returned plaint is filed

In Vicco Laboratories Bombay v. Hindustan Rimmer, AIR 1979 Del 114 case, the Court held that if after the defendant has appeared, the court is of the view that it has no jurisdiction and should, therefore, return the plaint, it must give intimation of such decision to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, thereupon, may make an application described in sub-rule 2. The ‘may’ in sub-rule 2 shows that it is his discretion to make or not make an application. It is not incumbent on him to do so. But if he does make the application and follows the procedure there laid down, the court shall fix the date of appearance by the parties in the court in which the plaint is to be presented and give notice of such date to the parties. Since the defendant by such notice is made awre of the suit against him and the date when he has to appear, the notice is treated as summons. As plaintiff choose the procedure laid down in sub-rule 2 and obtain an orderm, he naturally can have no right to appeal against the order returning the plaint. Application by him under sub-rule 2 is treayed as acceptance of the order of return.

In George Shipping Co. Ltd. v. MV Irene Pa Foreign Flagged Vessel, AIR 1997 Bom 280 case, the Court held that on return of plaint, the procedure laid down in rules 10 and 10A are to be followed. Fresh suit for the same cause of action is not maintainable.

Appeal Against Return of Plaint:

A Plaintiff can file an appeal from the order under Rule 10 of Order 7. Such appeal is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1 (a). But where the plaint was returned on an application made by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule10A (2) such appeal is not maintainable.

In Straw Products Ltd. v. Municipal Board Bhopal, AIR 1959 MP 253 case, the Court held that an appeal lies from an order returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court, whether the order is made by the court of first instance (Order 43 Rule 1(a)) or by the court of first appeal in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 107 of CPC. But no second appeal lies from the order of the first Appellant Court (Nilkanth v. Balwant, AIR 1925 Bom 431)

Power of Appellant Court to Transfer Suit to the Proper Court:

According to Order VII Rule 10 B(1), where, on an appeal against an order for the return of plaint, the Court hearing the appeal confirms such order, the Court of appeal may, if the plaintiff by an application so desires, while returning the plaint, direct plaintiff to file the plaint, subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), in the Court in which the suit should have been instituted, (whether such Court is within or without the State in which the Court hearing the appeal is situated), and fit a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is directed to be filed and when the date is so fixed it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is filed to serve the defendant with the summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court in which the plaint is filed, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs. According to clause 2, the direction made by the Court under sub-rule (1), shall be without any prejudice to the rights of the parties to question the jurisdiction of the Court, in which the plaint is filed, to try the suit.

This rule has been added to Order VII with a view to empowering the court hearing an appeal against an order of return of plaint to direct that, instead of the plaint being returned, the suit may be transferred to the court in which it should have been instituted. Further, the provisions for abolish the necessary for serving the summons on the defendants, where the order of return of plaint was made after the appearance of the defendants in the suit.

In Latadevi v. Ramnath, AIR 1987 Bom 364 case, the Court held that the provision contained in R. 10B specify a detailed procedure and that too of a mandatory nature.

Conclusion:

As per the above-stated matter, it can be said, that jurisdiction of the court is necessary, to obtain adjudication and the decision of court without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of the law, and not binding of anyone, though this is subject to the exceptions of section 21 of CPC. Return is different from rejection and it needs to be noted. Return of plaint does not connote that the plaint had mistaken or that the rules for drafting the plaint were not conformed to. It simply means that the court is not empowered to try the suit for which the plaint is filed. On the contrary, the plaint is rejected if the essential requirements of a plaint are not provided in the plaint or if the certain elements are vague and ambiguous. on the return of plaint, the suit should be instituted when plaint is presented in the proper court. It will not be regarded as a continuation of the old suit. It will be treated as a fresh plaint subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court-fees.

The post Return of Plaint by the Court (Order VII Rules 10, 10A and 10B) appeared first on The Fact Factor.

Definition Clause is a dictionary of the word used in the statute which is useful in interpreting the statute. It gives the meaning of that word or phrase related to the statute. Objects of this clause are to provide for proper interpretation of the enactment and to shorten the language of enacting part.  According to Craies, the word or phrase is defined in two ways restrictively and extensively. When the word ‘mean’ is used in the definition it is used in a restrictive way to restrict the meaning as given in the definition only. While when the word ‘includes’ is used in the definition it is used in an extensive way to broaden the meaning of the word in the statute.

Justice G.P. Singh, in his book on interpretation, has explained it thus: “A definition section may borrow definitions from an earlier Act and the definition so borrowed may not necessarily be in the definition section but may be in some other provisions of the earlier Act. A definition borrowed by incorporation or reference may be sometimes found in the rules made under the referred statute. For example, Article 366(1) of the Constitution defines agricultural income to mean agricultural income as defined for the purpose of enactments relating to Indian Income-tax.”

Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the Definition Clause. Presently, there are 20 definition clauses in all. We shall study them one by one.

Section 2(1) Code:

“Code” includes rules;

The Code of Civil Procedure has two parts. The main body of the Code is in the Sections and the rules refer to matters of mere machinery which the High Court may adapt to local conditions. Thus Hig Courts are allowed to modify the rules as per circumstances.

In Manekbai Manohar v. M. Deshpande, AIR 1971 Bom 21 case, the Court observed that the body of the Code of Civil Procedure creates a jurisdiction while the rules indicate the mode in which it is to be exercised.

In Lakshmi Kumar v. Krishna Ram, AIR 1950 MB 156 case, the Court opined: “It follows that the body of the Code of Civil Procedure is expressed in more general terms and it has to be read in conjunction with the more particular provisions of the rules.

In Basavayya v. Venkatappiah, AIR 1926 Mad 676 case, the Court held that where there is a clear conflict between the body of the Code of Civil Procedure and the rules, the former must prevail.

Section 2(2) Decree:

“Decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within, but shall not include

(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or

(b) any order of dismissal for default.

Explanation: A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final;

A decree is an official order that is drafted and issued by someone in a position of legal authority, like a judge.

In Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel, AIR 1964 SC 1099 (1113) case, the Supreme Court held that in order that a decision of a court to be a “decree” the following elements must be present.

• There must be an adjudication;
• Such adjudication must have been given in a suit;
• It must have determined the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in dispute in the suit;
• Such determination must be of conclusive nature; and
• There must be a formal expression of such adjudication.

In Bal Kishan v. Tulasi Bai, AIR 1987 MP 120 case, the Court held that order must satisfy the requirements of Section 2(2) in order to become decree. Merely labelling it as a decree does not make it a decree.

To Read About More on Decree Click Here

Section 2(3): Decree Holder:

“Decree-holder” means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made;

In Bajirao v. Kashirao, AIR 1978 Bom 350 case, the Court held that a decree-holder is one whose name is inscribed on the decree and in whose favour such decree has been passed.

Section 2(4): District:

“District” means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a District Court), and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court;

In Daily Calendar Supplying Bureau v. United Concern, AIR 1967 Mad 381 case, the Court during a discussion on the jurisdiction for the suit, under the Copyright Act, 1957, held that in the absence of such a court having the jurisdiction, a High Court having the ordinary original civil jurisdiction would be deemed to be the District Court.

In Raja Soap Factory v. Shantharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1449 case, the Court held that if a High Court does not possess the ordinary original jurisdiction, it would not, though at the apex of the civil courts, be the District Court for the purpose of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958.

Section 2(5): Foreign Court:

“Foreign Court” means a Court situate outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government;

Section 2(6): Foreign Judgment:

“Foreign judgment” means the judgment of a foreign Court;

Section 2(7): Government Pleader:

“Government Pleader” includes any officer appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions expressly imposed by this Code on the Government Pleader and also any pleader acting under the directions of the Government Pleader;

The government can have as many government pleaders as it likes. The definition is inclusive. It must be read with O 27, rr 4 and 8B.

In Kanta Kathuria v, Manak, Air 1970 SC 694 (700) case, the Court observed that a person appointed as a special government pleader under O 27, r 8(B) to conduct a particular case specified in the notification appointing him does not hold the office of government pleader.

Section 2(7A): High Court:

“High Court” in relation to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, means the High Court in Calcutta;

Section 2(7B): India:

“India”, except in sections 1, 29, 43, 44, 44A, 78, 79, 82, 83 and 87A, means the territory of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Section 2(8): Judge:

“Judge” means the presiding officer of a Civil Court;

In Aloo v. Gabubha, ILR 19 Bom 608 case, the Court held that no judge can act in any matter in which he has any pecuniary interest, nor where he has any interest, though not a pecuniary one, sufficient to create a real bias.

In Anand Prakash v. Asst. Registrar Co-op Societies, AIR 1968 All 2 case, the Court held that an Arbitrator is neither a judge nor a court.

Section 2(9): Judgment:

“Judgment” means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order;

Section 2(10): Judgment-debtor:

“judgment-debtor” means any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made;

In Iaq v. Ramji, (1952) ILR All  618 case, the Court held that the word “judgment-debtor’ as used in this rule has been not to include the legal representative of a deceases judgment-debtor.

In Vijay Raj v. Lal Chand, (1966) ILR Raj 194 case, Court held that surety of judgment-debtor is not himself a judgment-debtor.

Section 2(11): Legal Representative:

“Legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or issued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued;

In Manjushri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 1474 case, the Court observed: “According to the definition given in the Code, legal representative means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.

Section 2(12): mesne profits:

“mesne profits” of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession;

The main object of awarding mesne profits is to compensate the person entitled to be in possession of the property. The concept of mesne profits is applied due to the wrongful possession of the defendant.

In Mahadei v. Kaliji Birajman, 1969 All LJ 896 case, the Court held that the expression mesne profits as defined in s 2 (12) of the Code means those profits which a person in wrongful possession of such property either actually received or might have received with due diligence. It is not always necessary that there should be proof of actual receipt.

In Kishen Kumar Narandas Jobanputra v. Purushottam Mathurdas Raithatha, 2006 (2) Civil Court Cases 600 (Bom) case, the Court held that for entitling him to grant of mesne profits, the plaintiff must lead evidence to prove what would be the compensation the defendant might have received with due diligence for his wrongful possession. Where the plaintiff did not lead any evidence, it was held that he was not entitled to claim mesne profits.

Section 2(13): Movable Property:

“movable property” includes growing crops;

The definition must be limited to the Code of Civil Procedure, for under s 3 (26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, standing crops are immovable property.

Section 2(14): Order:

“order” means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree;

Section 2(15): Pleader:

“Pleader” means any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court, and includes an advocate, a vakil and an attorney of a High Court;

In Re Pleaders of the High Court, (1884) ILR 8 Bom 155 case, the Court observed: “The term pleader is, here, used in a much larger sense than its ordinary signification as a convenient term to designate all persons who are entitled to plead for others in court. Pleader, in its ordinary sense, is synonymous with vakil.

Advoate: An advocate is defined in s 22 (a) of the Bar Councils Act, 1926, as one whose name is entered on the rolls of an advocate of the High Court. An advocate whose name has been removed from the roll is not within this definition.

Section 2(16): Prescribed:

“prescribed” means prescribed by rules;

Section 2(17): Public Officer:

“public officer” means a person falling under any of the following descriptions, namely:

public officer means a person falling under any of the following descriptions, namely:

(a) every Judge;

(b) every member of All India Service;

(c) every commissioned or gazetted officer in the military, naval or air forces of the Union while serving under the Government;

(d) every officer of a Court of Justice whose duty it is, as such officer, to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate or keep any document, or to take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial process, or to administer any oath, or to interpret, or to preserve order, in the Court, and every person especially authorised by a Court of Justice to perform any of such duties;

(e) every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement;

(f) every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience;

(g) every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government, or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government, or to execute any revenue-process, or to investigate, or to report on, any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary

interests of the Government; and

(h) every officer in the service or pay of the Government, or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty;

Section 2(18): Rules:

“rules” means rules and forms contained in the First Schedule or made under section 122 or section 125;

Section 2(19): Share:

“share in a corporation” shall be deemed to include stock, debenture stock, debentures or bonds; and

Section 2(20): Signed:

“signed”, save in the case of a judgment or decree, includes stamped.

The definition is wider than in the General Clauses Act, 1897. Indians of rank sometimes use a stamp instead of signing, and the inability to write is not a condition precedent to the use of a stamp. The Madras High Court has observed that there is no provision that initials may be made by a stamp.

For More Articles on the Code of Civil Procedure Click Here

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > The Code of Civil Procedure > Definition Clause

The post CPC: Definition Clause appeared first on The Fact Factor.

A decree is one of the most frequently used terms in Civil Matters. The adjudication of a court of law is divided into two classes: decree and orders.  In this article, we are going to discuss the decree.

Execution is the act of carrying into effect the final judgment of a court or other tribunal. The writ authorising a particular officer to carry such judgment is called execution, in its rational and practical sense execution is the formal method prescribed by law, whereby the parties entitled to the benefit of the judgment or any other equivalent obligations may obtain, that benefit. Execution, is the fast stage of a suit whereby possession/recovery of anything/amount recovered by a judgment is obtained. The word execution of criminal means enforcing death sentence.

In Ramnarayan v. Anandilal, AIR 1970 MP 110(118) case, the Court observed that the word execution embraces all the appropriate means by which a decree is enforced and includes ail processes and proceedings in aid of or supplemental to execution.

In State of Rajasthan v. Savaksha, AIR 1972 GUJ 1719 case, the Court observed that the word “Execution” is not defined under the Civil Procedure Code. It is the enforcement of decrees and orders by the process of the court so as to enable the decree-holder to realise the fruits of decree

Decree:

A decree is an official order that is drafted and issued by someone in a position of legal authority, like a judge.  Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines Decree as follows:-                          

Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final.

It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144 of CPC, but shall not include-                                                                                 

a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or                                

b) any order of dismissal for default.

Explanation:

A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit, it may be partly preliminary and partly final;

Section 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines decree holder.

Section 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

“decree-holder” means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made.

Essentials Elements of Decree:

In Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel, AIR 1964 SC 1099 (1113) case, the Supreme Court held that in order that a decision of a court to be a “decree” the following elements must be present.

• There must be an adjudication;
• Such adjudication must have been given in a suit;
• It must have determined the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in dispute in the suit;
• Such determination must be of conclusive nature; and
• There must be a formal expression of such adjudication.

In Bal Kishan v. Tulasi Bai, AIR 1987 MP 120 case, the Court held that order must satisfy the requirements of Section 2(2) in order to become decree. Merely labelling it as a decree does not make it a decree.

Adjudication:

Adjudication is the first essential of decision of the court to be a decree. The matter in dispute should be judicially determined.

In Madan Naik v. Hansubala Devi, AIR 1983 SC 676 case, the Court held that if the matter is not judicially determined then, it is not a decree.

In Deep Chand v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1994 SC 1901 (1903) case, the Court held that the adjudication should be made by the officer of the Court and if it is not passed by an officer of the court then it is not a decree.

In Motilal v. Padmaben, AIR 1982 Guj. 254 case, the Court held that a decision on matter of an administrative nature, or order dismissing a suit for default of appearance of parties or dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution cannot be termed as a decree inasmuch as it does not judicially deal with the matter in dispute.

Suit:

A requirement of a suite is the second essential of decision of the court to be a decree. Without suit there cannot be a decree. Suit ordinarily means a civil proceedings instituted by presentation of a plaint. Civil suit is the institution of litigation for enforcement of civil rights (or substantive rights, it may be against state or individual). A suit is resulted into decree.

In Jagadishwar Sahai v. Surjan Singh Pal, AIR 1977 ALL 554 case, the Court observed every suit is commenced by a plaint.

In Minakshi v. Subramanaya, (1888) ILR 11 Mad 26 (35) case, the Court held that when there is no civil suit there is no decree.

In Hansraj Gupta v. official Liquidators of the Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. AIR 1933 PC 63 case, the privy council Lordship defined the term “suit” as: “The word ‘suit’ ordinarily means and apart from some context must be taken to mean, a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint.”

Essentials of a Suit:

• Name of Parties:  To constitute a suit, there must be at least two opposing parties the plaintiff and the defendant. There is no limitation with regards to number on either side.
• A Cause of Action: A cause of action means the whole of the material facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to allege and prove in order to succeed. The cause of action is essential to a suit represented in Order II Rule 2 of the Code wherein it is stated that a plaint must mention the cause of action. Every plaint must disclose a cause of action if not, Order VII Rule 11 of the Code states that it is the duty of the court to reject the plaint. Examples of cause of action are breach of contract, fraud, defamation, etc.
• Subject Matter: There must be a subject matter with respect the civil dispute exists. A subject matter of the suit is the particular thing in respect of which the suit has been filed. The process of proving and disproving in proceedings can be done on basis of certain facts. These facts which essentially go on to prove or disprove the cause of action will be called the matter in issue. It can either be some property upon which the plaintiff exercises his legal right or it can be a personal right of the plaintiff not related to any property. There cannot be practically anything other than these things for a subject matter of a suit. 
• Relief Claimed by Plaintiff: No court will give relief unless relief is specifically claimed by the party. Relief is of two types: specific relief and alternative relief.

However, under certain enactments specific provisions have been made to treat applications as suits. Proceedings under following Acts are statutory suits and decision given thereunder are, therefore decrees.

• The Indian Succession Act
• The Hindu Marriage Act
• The Land acquisition Act
• The Arbitration Act

In Leela Hotels Ltd. v. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 903 case, where the question was whether the Award of an Arbitrator tantamounts to a decree or not, the Court held that Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 makes it very clear that such an award has to be enforced under CPC in the same manner as if it were a decree of a court. Accordingly, it was held that the said language leaves no room for the doubt as to the manner in which the Award is to be accepted.

In Diwan Bros. v. Central bank of India, AIR 1976 SC 1503 (1518) case, the Court observed that a decision of a tribunal, even though described as “decree” under the Act, is a decree passed by the tribunal and not by a court covered by Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Rights of the parties: 

In Dattatraya v. Radhabai, AIR 1921 Bom 220 case, the court observed that the word ‘Right’ means substantive rights and not merely procedural rights.

In Kanji Hirjibhai v. Jivraj Dharamshi, AIR 1976 Guj 152 case, the Court held that the term parties means parties to the suit, i.e the plaintiffs and defendants and if an order is passed upon the application made by a third party who is a stranger to suit then it is not a decree.

An order to be a decree it must have determined the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. The expression ‘matter in controversy in the suit’ means such matter as has been brought up for adjudication by the court through the pleadings. Hence, the conclusive determination, in order to amount to a decree must be on matters in controversy in the suit. For example, an order rejecting the application of a poor plaintiff to waive the court costs is not a decree because it does not determine the right of the party in regards to the matters alleged in the suit.

In Ahmed Musaji Saleji v. Hashim Ibrahim Saleji, AIR 1915 PC 116, the Privy Council held that the expression ‘matter in controversy’ refers to the subject matter of the suit with reference to which some relief is sought.

In Ma Chon v. Maung Myint, AIR 1927 Rang 148 (PC) case, the Privy Council held that there must have been an adjudication on the rights of the parties.

In Gauhati Bank Ltd. v. Baliram. AIR 1950 Assam 169 case, the Court held that an order of dismissal for the default of appearance is no determination of rights of the parties and, therefore, not a decree.

Conclusive Determination: 

Such determination by the court must be conclusive in nature. This means that the court will not entertain any argument to change the decision i.e. as far as the court is concerned, the matter in issue stands resolved. Thus any interlocutory order not deciding of the parties is not a decree.

In Narayan Chandra v. Pratirodh Sahini, AIR 1991 Cal 53 case, the Court held that the determination should be final and conclusive regarding the court which passes it.

Test of Order to be a Decree:

In Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 992 case, the Court observed that the crucial point which requires to be decided in such a case is whether the decision is final and conclusive in essence and substance. If it is, it is a decree, if not, it is not a decree. The Court further held that whether or not an order of the court is a decree, the court should take into account pleadings of the parties and proceedings leading up to the passing of an order. With a view to find out the meaning of the words in the order and to determine whether such order is a decree, the court often may have to consider the circumstances under which the order was made and the words were used.

Formal Expression:

There must be a formal expression of adjudication. In simple terms to be a decree, the court must formally express its decision in the manner provided by law. All the requirements of form must be complied with. The decree should be drawn separately and it should follow the judgment. A mere comment of the judge cannot be a decree. If a decree has not been drawn up, then there is absolutely no scope of an appeal from the judgment i.e. No appeal lies against the judgment, if the decree is not formally drawn upon the judgment.

In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 (577) case, the Court held that the decree should follow the judgment and it should be drawn separately.

Decisions considered as a decree

The decisions held to be decree are as follows:

• Order of abetment of suit
• Dismissal of appeal as time-barred;
• Dismissal of suit or appeal due to the requirement of evidence or proof;
• Rejection of plant due to non-payment of court fees;
• Order granting costs and instalments;
• An order refusing costs or instalments;
• An order refusing maintainability of appeal;
• Order denying the survival of right to sue;
• Order stating that there is no cause of action;
• An order refusing to grant one or several reliefs;

Decisions not considered as a decree

The decisions which are not considered as a decree are as follows:

• Dismissal of appeal for default;
• Appointment of Commissioner in order to take accounts;
• Order for remand;
• Order granting interim relief;
• An order refusing the grant of interim relief;
• Rejection of plaint in order to present it to the proper court;
• Application rejected for condonation of delay;
• Order holding an application to be maintainable;
• Order of refusal to set aside the sale;
• The order issuing directions for the assessment of mesne profit.

Classes of Decree:

Preliminary Decree:

A decree is preliminary when the adjudication. though it conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to some matters in controversy in the suit, does not completely dispose of the suit, and further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of.

Example: A wife sues her husband for maintenance. In this case, the Court has to first decide whether she gets maintenance during the time the trial is taking place. Then order regarding the maintenance during the time the trial is a preliminary decree. The Court will further enquire and will give final decree after hearing both the parties.

Final Decree:

A final decree is one which completely disposes of a suit and finally settles all questions in the controversy between parties and nothing further remains to be decided thereafter. Ordinarily there will be only one final decree in the suit. However, where two or more causes of action are joined together there can be more than one final decree.

A decree may be said to be final in two ways,

1. when within prescribed period there has been no appeal filed against the decree or the matter has been decided by the decree of the highest Court, or
2. when the Court passing it completely disposes of the suit.

Partially preliminary and Partially Final Decree:

A decree may be partly preliminary and partly final and this may be explained by way of example.

For example, two brothers argue over who inherits the family property from their late father. This property is currently leased out to a family. While the determination of who gets the property is the subject of the final decree, the determination of who gets the profits that accrue from the lease rent being paid during the length of the trial, is a matter of partly preliminary and partly final decree.

Order Rejecting a Plaint:

When a plaint is rejected, the order rejecting it is not an order, but a decree, and is, as such, appealable. It must be noted that there is no decree where the rejection of plaint is not under the Civil Procedure Code.

Determination of Question Under S. 144 of the Code:

An application for restitution can be filed under Section 144 of the Code. A restitution is ‘an act of restoring a thing to its proper owner’. When code passes an order of such restitution, then that order amounts to a decree.

Other Terms Used w.r.t. Decree:

Absolute Decree:

When a decree is complete by itself and becomes of full effect at once, it is called absolute decee

Decree Nisi:

The decree which is not to take effect, unlessthe person affected by it fails to show cause against it within a specified time is called decree nisi.

Ex Parte Decree:

When a plaint is filed and the plaintiff appears in court, but the defendant does not, when the suit is called out, if it is proved the summons were duly served on the defendant, the court may make an order that the suit shall be heard ex parte. In such case, the court may hear the plaintiff only and pass a decree in the matter. Such a decree is called an ex parte decree.

For More Articles on the Code of Civil Procedure Click Here

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > The Code of Civil Procedure > What is a Decree?

The post What is a Decree? appeared first on The Fact Factor.