- Orders Passed Under Order 21, Rules 58 and 97-100 - Not Included in the Definition of Decree
- The legislature has deliberately excluded orders passed under Order 21, Rule 58 (application for recovery of possession) and Rules 97 to 100 (orders related to execution of decrees) from the definition of 'decree' in Section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). This exclusion suggests that such orders are not considered decrees because they are procedural or interlocutory in nature and not final adjudications ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2560"].
- The legislature's intent appears to be that only certain adjudications, particularly final or substantive decisions, qualify as decrees. If these rules' orders were intended to be treated as decrees, they would have been explicitly included, similar to orders under Order 7, Rule 11 or Section 144 (restitution) ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2560"].
The exclusion of these orders indicates they are not deemed 'original decrees' but rather procedural steps or interlocutory orders that do not culminate in a final adjudication ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2560"].
Orders Rejecting the Plaint or Determining Questions Under Section 144 - Included in the Definition of Decree as per the Inclusive Limb
- Orders such as rejection of plaint and those determining questions under Section 144 are explicitly included within the scope of 'decree' through the inclusive limb of the definition ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 39486"].
- The definition's second limb encompasses orders that may not be considered decrees under the first limb, such as rejection of plaint, which the draftsman considered might not fall within the primary definition but are nonetheless deemed decrees for purposes like res judicata ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 39486"].
The inclusive nature ensures that certain interlocutory or procedural orders, like rejection of plaint, are recognized as decrees, even if they do not meet the criteria of final adjudication ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 39486"].
Formality and Nature of the Decree - Not All Orders or Judgments Are Decrees
- The definition emphasizes that a 'decree' is a formal expression of adjudication that must be deliberate and in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the court. Not all judgments or orders, especially those not disposing of the suit on merits, qualify as decrees ["
PERERA v. FERNANDO et al
"]. - For example, orders passed for dismissals for default or preliminary judgments may not be considered decrees unless they satisfy the criteria of adjudication or formal expression of judgment ["2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 12"].
The distinction is also made between substantive decrees and procedural or interlocutory orders, with the latter generally excluded from the definition unless specified ["
PERERA v. FERNANDO et al
"].Orders Not Final or Not Disposing of the Suit - Not Included in the Definition
- Orders that do not dispose of the suit on the merits or are interlocutory in nature, such as preliminary decrees or orders not finalizing the rights of parties, are generally excluded from the definition of decree ["
DE SILVA v. WILLIAM et al.
"]. - For instance, preliminary decrees or orders that do not settle the rights but only direct further proceedings are not considered decrees unless they are final or deemed to be final adjudications ["
DE SILVA v. WILLIAM et al.
"]. The law restricts the scope of what can be considered a decree to those that conclusively determine rights or liabilities, excluding procedural or interlocutory orders ["
DE SILVA v. WILLIAM et al.
"].Orders for Execution or Discharge of Decree - Not Decrees Themselves
- Questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree are to be determined by the executing court and are not considered part of the original decree ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2560"] ["
Momin Zulfikar Kasam VS Ajay Balkrishna Durve - Current Civil Cases
"]. - The law explicitly states that such questions are to be resolved within the execution proceedings, and they do not constitute decrees but are ancillary to the main adjudication ["
Momin Zulfikar Kasam VS Ajay Balkrishna Durve - Current Civil Cases
"]. - This underscores that execution orders or questions arising therein are distinct from the decree itself and are not included in its definition ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2560"].
Analysis and Conclusion- Orders passed under Rules 58 and 97-100 of Order 21 are explicitly excluded from the definition of 'decree', primarily because they are procedural or interlocutory and do not constitute final adjudications ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2560"].- Orders rejecting plaints or determining questions under Section 144 are included within the definition, especially under the inclusive limb, recognizing their significance in the legal process ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 39486"].- Not all judicial orders qualify as decrees; only those that are formal, deliberate, and final or substantively adjudicative are considered decrees. Orders that are procedural, interlocutory, or not dispositive are generally excluded ["
PERERA v. FERNANDO et al
"], ["DE SILVA v. WILLIAM et al.
"].- Questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of decrees are to be determined by the executing court and are not themselves decrees, thus excluded from the definition ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2560"] ["Momin Zulfikar Kasam VS Ajay Balkrishna Durve - Current Civil Cases
"].References:- ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2560"]- ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 39486"]- ["
PERERA v. FERNANDO et al
"]- ["DE SILVA v. WILLIAM et al.
"]- ["Momin Zulfikar Kasam VS Ajay Balkrishna Durve - Current Civil Cases
"]
