Back
2003(1) JLJ 171
(SUPREME COURT)
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.I., Y.K. Sabharwal and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu v. Union of India
W.Ps. No. 496 and 570 of 2002; Decided on 25.10.2002.
These writ petitions have been filed seeking to challenge amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 and Amendment Act No. 22 of 2002. [Para 2
Held: In the petitions, the amendments which were sought to be made by the aforesaid Amendment Acts have been challenged but we do not find that the said provisions are in any way ultra vires the Constitution. Neither Mr. Vaidyanathan nor any other learned counsel made any submissions to the effect that any of the amendments made were without legislative competence or violative of :my of the provisions of the Constitution. We have also gone through the provisions by which amendments have been made and do not find ‘any constitutional infirmity in the same. [Para 4
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 32 and 226 -- petitions in the nature of Public Interest Litigation -- cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. [Para 3
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 27 (amended) – words ‘‘on such day not beyond thirty days from date of institution of suit" -- indicate that summons must be served within thirty days. [Para 7
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 89 (as inserted) -- reason for insertion is that all the cases need not be decided by the Courts only -- keeping in view delays and limited number of judges, it has become imperative that resort should be had to alternative dispute resolution mechanism. [Para 9
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- amendments made in 1999 and 2002 -- need clarification -- committee for the purpose constituted to give its report within four moths. [Para 12
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 100A -- amended provision under -- no fault can be found -- no intra-Court appeal need be heard if valuation of appeal is nominal -- no prejudice would be caused. [Para 15
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 7 Rr.11(e) and 11(f) (as added) and R. 9 -- clauses are procedural -- would not require automatic rejection of plaint.
Our attention has been drawn to Order 7 Rule 11 to which clauses (e) and (f) have been added which enable the Court to reject the plaint where it is not filed in duplicate or where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order 7. It appears to us that the said clauses being procedural would not require the automatic rejection of the plaint at the first instance. If there is any defect as contemplated by Rule 11 (e) or non-compliance as referred to in Rule 11(f), the Court should ordinarily give an opportunity for rectifying the defects and in the event of the same not being done, the Court will have the liberty or the right to reject the plaint. [Para 16
(8) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 18 R. 4(1) and O. 16 Rr. 1 and 1A -party did not apply under O. 16 R. 1 -- examination-in-chief will he by affidavit -- summons issued to the witnesses -- Court can give an option either to file affidavit for examination-in-chief or gel if recorded in Court.
Order 16 Rule 1 provides for list of witnesses being filed and summons being issued to them for being present in Court for recording their evidence. Rule 1A, on the other hand, refers to production of witnesses without summons, where any party to the suit may bring any witness to give any evidence •nr to produce documents. Reading the provisions of Order 16 and Order 18 together, it appears to us that Order 18 Rule 4(1) will necessarily apply to a case contemplated by Order 16 Rule 1A, i.e., where any party to a suit, without applying for summoning under Rule 1, brings any witness to give evidence or produce any document. In such a case, examination-in-chief is not to be recorded in Court but shall be in the form of an affidavit.
In cases where the summons have to be issued under Order 16 Rule 1, the stringent provision of Order 18 Rule 4 may not apply When summons are issued, the Court can give an option to the witness summoned either to file an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief or to be present in Court for his examination. In appropriate cases, the Court can direct the summoned witness to file an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In other words, with regard to the summoned witnesses, the principle incorporated in Order 18 Rule 4 can be waived. Whether a witness shall be directed to file affidavit or be required to be present in Court for recording of his evidence, is a matter to be decided by the Court in its discretion having regard to the facts of each case. [Paras 17 & 18
(9) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 18 Rr. 4(2) and 4(3) -- Court has power to direct that all evidence will be recorded by Commissioner or by the Court -- it can also order that evidence in part will he recorded by Commissioner and in party by the Court – if recorded by Commissioner, simultaneous audio recording is advisable. [Para 19
(10) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 18 R. 17 A -- deletion of R. 17 A in 2002 -- effect is to restore status quo ante 1976 -- purpose is to avoid filing unnecessary applications to prolong the trial. [Para 21
(11) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 9 -- copy of the memorandum of appeal to be filed in Court against whose decree the appeal is filed -- is just to make the Court aware of filing of appeal – if no such copy is filed, the appeal will not become defective. [Para 23
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e la- 22 lu~ 2002 rFkk la- 46 lu~ 1999 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk esa fd, x, la‘kks/ku && u fo/kk;h l{kerkjfgr gSa] u gh muls lafo/kku ds fdlh mica/k dk vfrØe.k gksrk gSA
;g fjV ;kfpdk,¡ la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e la- 46 lu~ 1999 rFkk la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e la- 22 lu~ 2002 }kjk flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk esa fd, x, la‘kks/kuksa ij vk{ksi djrs gq, Qkby dh xbZ gSaA ¿ iSjk 2
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kfpdkvksa esa mu la‘kks/kuksa ij vk{ksi fd;k x;k gS tks iwoksZDr la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;eksa }kjk fd, x, Fks ijarq geus ugha ik;k fd mDr mica/k fdlh Hkh izdkj lafo/kku ds vf/kdkjkrhr gSaA u Jh oS|ukFku us] u fdlh vU; fo}ku dkmUlsy us gh bl vk‘k; dk fuosnu fd;k fd fd;k x;k dksbZ Hkh la‘kks/ku fo/kk;h {kerkjfgr Fkk vFkok mlls lafo/kku ds fdlh mica/k dk vfrØe.k gksrk gSa geus mu mica/kks dk Hkh ifj‘khyu fd;k gS ftuds }kjk la‘kks/ku fd, x, gSa rFkk ge muesa dksbZ lkafo/kkfud ‘kSfFkY; ugha ikrsA ¿ iSjk 4
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 32 rFkk 226 && yksd fgr ;kfpdk ds Lo:i dh ;kfpdk,¡ && okil yh tkuk vuqKkr ugha dh tk ldrhaA ¿ iSjk 3
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 27 ¼la‘kksf/kr½ && ‘‘kCn ^^ml fnu] tks okn lafLFkr djus dh frfFk ls rhl fnuksa ls vf/kd u gks** && minf‘kZr djrs gSa fd leu dh rhl fnu ds Hkhrj rkehy gks gh tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 7
¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 89 ¼;Fkk var%LFkkfir½ && var%LFkkfir djus dk dkj.k ;g gS fd lHkh ekeyksa dk fofu‘p;u U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fd;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha gS && foyac rFkk U;k;k/kh‘kksa dh lhfer la[;k dh n`f"V ls vfuok;Z gks x;k gS fd vkuqdfYid fookn&fujkdj.k ra= dk vkJ; fy;k tk,A ¿ iSjk 9
¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && lu~ 1999 rFkk 2002 esa fd, x, la‘kks/ku && Li"Vhdj.k vko‘;d gS && bl iz;kstukFkZ lhfer xfBr ftldh fjiksVZ pkj ekl ds Hkhrj lkSaih tk,xhA ¿ iSjk 12
¼6½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100d && la‘kksf/kr mica/k && dksbZ =qfV ugha fudkyh tk ldrh && vihy dk ewY;kadu ukeek= dk gks rc varjU;k;ky;hu vihy lquuk vko‘;d ugha && izfrdwy izHkko ugha iM+sxkA ¿ iSjk 15
¼7½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 7 fu- 11¼³½ ,oa 11¼p½ ¼;Fkk la‘kksf/kr½ rFkk fu- 9 && [kaM izfØ;kRed gSa && okni= dh Lor% [kkfjth visf{kr ugha gksxhA
gekjk /;ku vkns‘k 7 fu;e 11 dh vksj vkd`"V fd;k x;k gS ftlesa [kaM ¼³½ rFkk ¼p½ tksM+s x, gSa ftuds }kjk U;k;ky; dks ogk¡ okni= [kkfjt djus esa l{ke cuk;k x;k gS tgk¡ mls nks izfr;k¡ esa Qkby ugha fd;k x;k gS vFkok tgk¡ oknh vkns‘k 7 fu;e 9 ds mica/kksa dk vuqikyu djus esa foQy jgk gSA gesa izrhr gksrk gS fd mDr [kaM izfØ;kRed gksus ds dkj.k izFke ckj esa gh okni= dh Lor% [kkfjth visf{kr ugha gSA ;fn fu;e 11¼³½ }kjk ;Fkk vuq/;kr dksbZ =qfV gS vFkok fu;e 11¼p½ esa ;Fkk fufnZ"V vuuqikyu gS rc lkekU;r% U;k;ky; }kjk =qfV;k¡ lgh djus dk volj fn;k tkuk pkfg, rFkk ,slk ugha fd, tkus dh n‘kk esa U;k;ky; dks okni= [kkfjt djus dh Lora=rk vFkok vf/kdkj gksxkA ¿ iSjk 16
¼8½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 18 fu- 4¼1½ rFkk vk- 16 fu- 1 ,oa 1d && i{kdkj us vk- 16 fu- 1 ds v/khu vkosnu ugha fd;k && eq[; ijh{kk ‘kiFki= }kjk gksxh && lk{khx.k dks leu tkjh fd, x, && U;k;ky; }kjk eq[; ijh{kk ds fy, ‘kiFki= Qkby djus vFkok U;k;ky; esa vfHkfyf[kr djokus dk fodYi fn;k tk ldrk gSA
vkns‘k 16 fu;e 1 esa lk{khx.k dh lwph Qkby fd, tkus rFkk muds lk{; ds vfHkys[ku ds fy, U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr jgus ds fy, mUgsa leu tkjh fd, tkus dk mica/k gSA nwljh vksj] fu;e 1d esa leu ds fcuk lk{khx.k is‘k fd, tkus dk funsZ‘k gS] tgk¡ okn dk dksbZ&Hkh i{kdkj dksbZ&Hkh lk{; nsus vFkok nLrkost is‘k djus ds fy, dksbZ&Hkh lk{kh yk ldrk gSA vkns‘k 16 rFkk vkns‘k 18 ds mica/k lkFk i<+us ij gesa izrhr gksrk gS fd vkns‘k 18 fu;e 4¼1½ vko‘;dr% vkns‘k 16 fu;e 1d }kjk vuq/;kr ekeys dks ykxw gksxk] vFkkZr~] tgk¡ okn dk dksbZ&Hkh i{kdkj] fu;e 1 ds v/khu leu ds fy, vkosnu fd, fcuk] lk{; nsus ds fy, vFkok dksbZ nLrkost is‘k djus ds fy, dksbZ lk{kh ykrk gSA ,sls ekeys esa] eq[; ijh{kk U;k;ky; esa vfHkfyf[kr ugha gksxh] vfirq] ‘kiFki= ds :i esa gksxhA
,sls ekeyksa esa tgk¡ leu vkns‘k 16 fu;e 1 ds v/khu tkjh fd, tkuk gksaxs] vkns‘k 18 fu;e 4 ds dBksj mica/k ykxw ugha Hkh gks ldrsA tc leu tkjh fd, tk,¡ rc U;k;ky; }kjk leu fd, x, lk{kh dks eq[; ijh{kk ds fy, ‘kiFki= Qkby djus vFkok viuh ijh{kk ds fy, U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr jgus dk fodYi fn;k tk ldrk gSA mi;qDr ekeyksa esa] leu fd, x, lk{kh dks U;k;ky; }kjk funsf‘kr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd og eq[; ijh{kk ds fy, ‘kiFki= Qkby djsA vU; ‘‘kCnksa esa] leu fd, x, lk{khx.k ds ckjs esa vkns‘k 18 fu;e 4 esa lfEefyr fl)kar vf/kR;Dr fd;k tk ldrk gSA lk{kh dks ‘kiFki= Qkby djus dk funs‘k fn;k tk,xk vFkok mlls vius lk{; ds vfHkys[ku ds fy, U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr jgus dh vis{kk dh tk,xh] ;g izR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, U;k;ky; }kjk vius foosd }kjk fofuf‘pr fd;k tkus okyk fo"k; gSA ¿ iSjk 17 ,oa 18
¼9½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 18 fu- 4¼2½ ,oa 4¼3½ && U;k;ky; dks ;g funsf‘kr djus dh ‘kfDr gS fd laiw.kZ lk{; dfe‘uj }kjk ;k U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tk,xk && ;g Hkh vknsf‘kr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd lk{; Hkkxr% dfe‘uj }kjk rFkk Hkkxr% U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tk,xk && dfe‘uj }kjk vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkus ij lkFk&lkFk Jo.k vfHkys[ku mfpr gksxkA ¿ iSjk 19
¼10½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 18 fu- 17d && lu~ 2002 esa fu- 17d dk yksi && 1976 ls iwoZ dh ;FkkfLFkfr iqu%LFkkfir djus dk izHkko gS && fopkj.k yack [khapus ds fy, vuko‘;d vkosnu Qkby fd, tkus dk ifjgkj djus dk iz;kstu gSA ¿ iSjk 21
¼11½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 9 && vihy ds Kkiu dh izfr ml U;k;ky; esa Qkby dh tkuk ftldh fMØh ds fo:) vihy dh xbZ gS && dsoy U;k;ky; dh tkudkjh esa ;g ykus ds fy, gS fd vihy Qkby dh xbZ gS && ,slh izfr Qkby ugha dh tk, rc vihy =qfViw.kZ ugha gksxhA ¿ iSjk 23
Kirpal, C.J.I. -- 1. Rule.
2. These writ petitions have been filed seeking to challenge amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 and Amendment Act No. 22 of 2002.
3. Writ Petition (C) No. 496 of 2002 was filed by the Salem Advocate Bar Association and after notice was issued, the petitioner sought leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. By order dated 16th September, 2002, the prayer to withdraw the writ petition was declined as the petition had been filed in public interest. At the request of the Court, Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, Advocate agree to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae and they have rendered assistance to the Court for dealing with the case. The Court records its appreciation for the assistance given.
4. In the petitions, the amendments which were sought to be made by the aforesaid Amendment Acts have been challenged but we do not find that the said provisions are in any way ultra vires the Constitution. Neither Mr. Vaidyanathan nor any other learned counsel made any submissions to the effect that any of the amendments made were without legislative competence or violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. We have also gone through the provisions by which amendments have been made and do not find any constitutional infirmity in the same.
5. Mr. Vaidyanathan, however, drew our attention to some of the amendments which have been made with a view to show that there may be some practical difficulties in implementing the same. He also contended that some clarifications may be necessary. We shall deal with the said provisions presently.
6. Amendment has been made to section 27 dealing with summons to the defendant which, after the amendment, reads as follows :
"Summons to Defendants -- Where a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and may be served in the manner prescribed on such day not beyond thirty days from the date of the institution of the suit."
7. It was submitted by Mr. Vaidyanathan that the words "on such day not beyond thirty days from the date of the institution of the suit" seem to indicate that the summons must be served within thirty days of the date of the institution of the suit. In our opinion, the said provisions read as a whole will not be susceptible to that meaning. The words added by amendment, it appears fix outer time frame, by providing that steps must be taken within thirty days from the date of the institution of the suit, to issue summons. In other words, if the suit is instituted, for example, on 1st January, 2002, then the correct addresses of the defendants and the process fee must be filed in the Court within thirty days so that summons be issued by the Court not beyond thirty days from the date of the institution of the suit. The object is to avoid long delay in issue of summons for want of steps by the plaintiff. It is quite evident that if all that is required to be done by a party, has been performed within the period of thirty days, then no fault can be attributed to the party. If for any reason, the Court is not in a position or is unable to or does not issue summons within thirty days, there will, in our opinion, compliance with the provisions of section 27 once within thirty days of the issue of the summons the party concerned has taken steps to file the process fee along with completing the other formalities which are required to enable the Court to issue the summons.
8. Our attention was then drawn to a new section 89 which has been introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure. This provides for settlement of disputes, etc., and reads as under:
"89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court – (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them• to the parties for their observations
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
