Can Written Statement Be Filed After 90 Days? Detailed Discussion With Landmark Judgements

The Civil Procedure Code which consolidated and amended the laws relating to the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature in the year 1908, has in the recent times undergone several amendments based on the recommendations of the Law Commission displaying the anxiety of Parliament to secure an early and expeditious disposal of civil suits and proceedings but without sacrificing the fairness of trial and the principles of natural justice in-built in any sustainable procedure. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (104 of 1976) records the following basic considerations which persuaded the Parliament in enacting the amendments:-

(i) that a litigant should get a fair trial in accordance with the accepted principles of natural justice;

(ii) that every effort should be made to expedite the disposal of civil suits and proceedings, so that justice may not be delayed;

(iii) that the procedure should not be complicated and should, to the utmost extent possible, ensure fair deal to the poorer sections of the community who do not have the means to engage a pleader to defend their cases.

The text of the provision in the present form has been introduced by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (22 of 2002) with effect from 1.7.2002. The purpose of such like amendments is stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons as "to reduce delay in the disposal of civil cases".

The text of Order VIII, Rule 1, as it stands now, reads as under : -

"1. Written statement :- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons."

From the above provision Three things are clear. 

Firstly, a careful reading of the language in which Order VIII, Rule 1 has been drafted, shows that it casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the power of the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for. 

Secondly, the nature of the provision contained in Order VIII, Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. 

Thirdly, the object behind substituting Order VIII, Rule 1 in the present shape is to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases much to the chagrin of the plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. The process of justice may be speeded up and hurried but the fairness which is a basic element of justice cannot be permitted to be buried.

However the new provision created confusion among the Courts and lawyers that whether the default outer limit of ninety days prescribed by the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code is conclusive so that in no case, howsoever exceptional, would a breach of this outer limit be warranted and that in no case, the balancing act of the court would be allowed to incline towards an extension of time, beyond the period of ninety days, for filing the written statement.

The constitutional validity of the 2002 Amendment  was challenged before the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 189, (2003) 1 SCC 49 (Salem Advocate Bar I). The Court held that the 2002 Amendment was not in any way ultra vires the Constitution. However To ensure that the amendments became effective and resulted in quicker dispensation of justice, the Court constituted a Committee with directions to submit a detailed report concerning the 2002 Amendment.

Upon receipt of the Report of the Committee constituted pursuant to Salem Advocate Bar I, the matter was considered by another Bench of three judges in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India. (2005) 6 SCC 344

As regards the provisions of Rule 1 of Order VIII, the Court reproduced the Report, in para 21, as follows:

" The use of the word 'shall' in Order VIII Rule 1 by itself is not conclusive to determine whether the provision is mandatory or directory. We have to ascertain the object which is required to be served by this provision and its design and context in which it is enacted. 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. The rule in question has to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. The rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules or procedure are handmaid of justice and not its mistress. In the present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice. "

" In construing this provision, support can also be had from Order VIII Rule 10, …where despite the use of the word "shall"in Rule 1, the court has been given discretion to pronounce or not to pronounce the judgment against the defendant even if the written statement is not filed and instead pass such order as it may think fit in relation to the suit. In construing the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 and Rule 10, the doctrine of harmonious construction is required to be applied. … The effect would be that under Rule 10 of Order VIII, the court in its discretion would have the power to allow the defendant to file the written statement even after the expiry of the period of 90 days provided under Order VIII Rule 1."

Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory.

In Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors AIR 2005 SC 2441, (2005) 4 SCC 480 the Apex Court observed that 

" All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. "

" It is also to be noted that though the power of the Court under the proviso appended to Rule 1 of Order VIII is circumscribed by the words __ "shall not be later than ninety days" but the consequences flowing from non-extension of time are not specifically provided though they may be read by necessary implication. Merely, because a provision of law is couched in a negative language implying mandatory character, the same is not without exceptions. The courts, when called upon to interpret the nature of the provision, may, keeping in view the entire context in which the provision came to be enacted, hold the same to be directory though worded in the negative form."

The Court further observed that while extending the time beyond the stipulated period of 90 days, the courts may impose costs as a means to 

(a) deter the defendant and 

(b) compensate the plaintiff. 

The Court also held that the defendant seeking extension may be required to furnish affidavit and other documents in support of the grounds pleaded for extension of time, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.

Instances where the delay was condoned :-

1. In Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors AIR 2005 SC 2441, (2005) 4 SCC 480 The appellant was served with the summons, accompanied by a copy of the election petition, requiring his appearance before the Court on 6.4.2004. On the appointed day, the appellant appeared through his counsel and sought for one month's time for filing the written statement. The Court allowed time till 13.5.2004 for filing the written statement. On 13.5.2004, the appellant again filed an application seeking further time for filing the written statement on the ground that copies of several documents were required to be obtained. The Court adjourned the hearing to 3.7.2004 as, in between, from 13.5.2004 to 2.7.2004, the High Court was closed for summer vacation. 

On 22.6.2004, appellant's advocate's nephew expired. However, the written statement was drafted and kept ready for filing. The registered clerk of the advocate was deputed for filing the same in the Court on the appointed day. The clerk reached Allahabad, the seat of the High Court, from Gazipur where the appellant and his advocate resided. On 1.7.2004, that is, two days prior to the day of hearing, the affidavit of the appellant annexed with the written statement, was sworn in at Allahabad. However, (as is later on stated), on account of lack of understanding on the part of the registered clerk, the written statement could not be filed on 3.7.2004 but the same was filed on 8.7.2004 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement briefly stating the reasons set out hereinbefore. 

In appeal against the refusal of the High Court to accept the written statement on the ground of expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and accepted the written  statement.

2. In Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar,AIR 2006 SC 396, (2006) 1 SCC 46 the appellants were summoned on 21.10.2003 and sought time to file the written Statement, which was granted first until 17.11.2003 and for a second time until 19.02.2004. The latter date being a holiday, the written statement was filed on 20.02.2004. The trial court refused to accept the written statement on the ground of limitation. 

The Supreme Court found that the trial court had itself granted time up to 19.02.2004, which date fell beyond the period of 90 days. On the reasoning, that had the written statement been filed on 19.02.2004, the trial court could not have refused to accept the written statement as it was within the time granted by it, held that a mere fortuitous circumstance cannot make the written statement filed, unacceptable.

3. In R.N. Jadi v. Subhashchandra AIR 2007 SC 2571, (2007) 6 SCC 420 A dispensation that makes Order VIII Rule 1 directory, leaving it to the courts to extend the time indiscriminately would tend to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the amendments to the Code. It is, therefore, necessary to emphasize that the grant of extension of time beyond 30 days is not automatic, that it should be exercised with caution and for adequate reasons and that an extension of time beyond 90 days of the service of summons must be granted only based on a clear satisfaction of the justification for granting such extension, the court being conscious of the fact that even the power of the court for extension inhering in Section 148 of the Code, has also been restricted by the legislature. It would be proper to encourage the belief in litigants that the imperative of Order VIII Rule 1 must be adhered to and that only in rare and exceptional cases, the breach thereof will be condoned. Such an approach by courts alone can carry forward the legislative intent of avoiding delays or at least in curtailing the delays in the disposal of suits filed in courts

4. In Zolba v. Keshao AIR 2008 SC 2099, (2008) 11 SCC 769  the appellant stated that on instruction of his counsel in the trial court, the written statement was not filed within the period of limitation as the appellant was under bonafide belief that the written statement shall be filed after the decision of the appeal by the District Court. The written statement was, however, filed and the records of the case were called from his lawyer who has been conducting his case in the appeal pending before the District Court. The misc. appeal has been filed against an order of injunction before the District Court Chandrapur whereas the suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagbhid. Since the appeal was pending, the records of the appellant were then lying with the lawyer at Chandrapur. Therefore, the file was not available with the lawyer of the appellant at Nagbhid and therefore, the written statement could not be filed within the period of limitation. 

The Court held that "Such being the position, in our view, the facts stated would constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the written statement and it has to be taken that the non-availability of records at Nagbhid had prevented the appellant from filing the written statement within the period of limitation which in our view was an exceptional case constituting sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the written statement"

5. In Mohammed Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad, 2009 (1) SCALE 71 the summons in respect of a suit for a decree for permanent  injunction with application for temporary injunction was served on 06.07.2002 and the adjournments were sought and granted from time to time until 31.05.2005, when the plaintiff applied for pronouncement of judgment in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code on the ground of non-filing of the written statement by the defendant. On the said date, no application for condonation of delay was however filed. The trial court refused to entertain the written statement and, instead, fixed the matter for recording of evidence in support of plaintiff’s case. In a writ petition, however, the High Court allowed the petitioner to contest the suit on merits and accepted his written statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

6. In Chittanku Ranjan Das vs Swati Das & Ors;( C.O. No. 34 of 2015 Cal HC) the suit was instituted on 18th November, 2013 and an application for injunction was moved on 20.11.2013. The defendant no. 3 was on caveat and appears in the said application. The defendant no.2 who is the petitioner in the revisional.  application was not on caveat and a service was directed to be affected upon the other defendants including the petitioner herein under Order 39 Rule 3 (a) & (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner appeared on 19.12.2013 and prayed for a time to file written objection to the injunction application. The next date was fixed on 27th January, 2014 when further time to file written objection but further sought permission to file written objection to the injunction application was sought by the petitioner. Though the injunction application was further fixed on 3rd March, 2014 and 4th April, 2014 but it does not appear that the petitioner have waived the service of summons by conduct or by specific action. It is only on 13th May, 2004, the petitioner not only prayed for extension of time to file written statement.

The Court held that "Once the defendant have taken steps to disclose the defence, the time under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code should begin. It appears that the written statement was filed on 16th July, 2014 within 120 days. The written statement, therefore, does not appear to have been filed beyond the outer limit and once the Court permitted the defendant to file written statement by enlarging the time, it would be a travesty of justice that the written statement filed subsequently shall not be accepted."

However in Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd, AIR 2007 SC 1574 where the summons was served on the defendant on 22.03.2005. On 25.04.2005, the counsel for the defendant sought, and was granted, time to file the written statement until 20.06.2005. The matter was adjourned three times and the written statement was finally filed in August 2005, i.e. almost five months later. Despite serious objections from the plaintiff, the court accepted the written statement, subject to costs of Rs.2,000/-. The action of the court accepting the written statement was challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that the proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1 mandates the recording of reasons, which, in the matter, the courts below had failed to record. The apex Court set aside the orders of the lower courts on the ground that no reason(s) had been indicated justifying the acceptance of the belated written statement. 

Thus it is clear from the above discussion that the the limitation of filing written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1,is directory and not mandatory. The Court may accept written statement beyond the maximum prescribed limit of 90 days. However, the power of the Court to grant extension should be exercised 

(a) with caution, 

(b) for adequate reasons 

(c) only based on a clear satisfaction of the 

justification for granting such extension and 

(d) only in rare and exceptional cases. 

What, however,continues to be difficult is the assessment of the gravity of circumstances in which judicial discretion warrants an exercise in favour of the extension of time.

Read More

18 Stages Of Civil Suit In India Under The Civil Procedure Code, 1908

18 Stages Of Civil Suit as per Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are as under

1. Presentation of plaint.
2. Service of summons on defendant.
3. Appearance of parties
4. Ex-parte Decree
5. Interlocutory Proceedings
6. Filing of written statement by defendant
7. Production of documents by parties (plaintiff and defendant)
8. Examination of parties
9. Discovery and Inspection
10. Admission
11. Framing of issues by the court.
12. Summoning And Attendance Of Witnesses 
13. Hearing Of Suits And Examination Of Witnesses 
14. Argument
15. Judgment
16. Preparation of Decree
17. Appeal, Review, Revision 
18. Execution of Decree

The detailed discussion of all the stages are given below

1.Plaint (Order 7) :- The entire legal machinery under the Civil Law is set in motion by filing of plaint and hence plaint is the actual starting point of all pleadings in a case.

The plaint shall contain the following particulars

(i) Name of the court in which suit is to be filed.
(ii) Name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff.
(iii) Name, description and place of residence of the defendant so far it can be ascertained.
(iv) Where the plaintiff or defendant is a minor or person of unsound mind
statement to that effect.
(v) Facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose.
(vi) Fact showing that the court has jurisdiction.
(vii) Relief which the plaintiff claims.
(viii) Where plaintiff has allowed a set off or relinquishes a portion of his claim, the amount so allowed for relinquishment.
(ix) Statement of the value of the subject matter of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction and court fees.

If after submitting the plaint the court finds that it should be submitted before some other court the plaint could be returned, and intimation thereof can be given to the plaintiff.

The court has power to reject the plaint on following grounds:

1.Where it does not disclose the cause of action
2.Where the relief claimed is under valued and plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the time fixed.
3. If the relief is properly valued but insufficient court fee stamp is paid and the plaintiff fails to make good such amount.
4. Where the suit appears to be time barred, from the statements in the plaint.
5. When the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

In ROOPLAL SATHI V/s. SINGH 1982 3SCC 487 it was held that the whole plaint should be rejected and not a portion of it.

However the rejection of plaint on aforesaid grounds does not bar the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint. (ORDER 7 RULE 13 OF CPC)

2. Service of Summons :-  Summons is an instrument used by the court to commence a civil action or proceedings and is a means to acquire jurisdiction over party. It is a process directed to a proper officer requiring him to notify the person named, that an action has been commenced against him, in the court from where process is issued and that he is required to appear, on a day named and answer the claim in such action.When the suit is duly instituted summons may be issued to defendant to appear and answer the claim.

Defendant to whom a summons has been issued may appear in person or by a pleader duly instructed or by a pleader accompanied by some person who is able to answer all questions.

To expedite the filing of reply and adjudication of claim, the court may direct filing of written statement on date of appearance and issue suitable summons for that purpose. Failure to do so may result in Ex-parte judgment under order 8, rule 10.

The provisions of substituted service have to be resorted when the summons is not served by normal process through the court bailiff. Where the court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for purpose of avoiding service or that for any others reason the summons can not be served in ordinary way the court shall order summons to be served by affixing copy thereof in conspicuous part of the house. (ORDER 5, RULE 20 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.)

To expedite service of summons one more provision is relating to substituted service under which the court orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain (ORDER 20 RULE - 1A)

3. Appearance of parties :- On the day fixed in the summons the defendant is required to appear and answer and the parties shall attend the court unless the hearing is adjourned to a future day fixed by the court, if the defendant is absent court may proceed exparte. Where on the day so fixed it is found that summons has not been served upon defendant is consequence of failure of plaintiff to pay the court fee or postal charges the court may dismiss the suit. Where neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appears the court may dismiss the suit. Such dismissal does not bar fresh suit in respect of same cause of action.

4. Ex-parte Decree :-  A decree against the Defendant without hearing him or in his absence or in absence of his defense can be passed under the following circumstances

1.Where any party from whom a written statement is required fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.(ORDER 8, RULE 10 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.)

2. Where defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of facts contained in the plaint, except against person with disability.(ORDER 8, RULE 5(2), CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.)

3. Where the plaintiff appears and defendant does not appear when suit is called up for hearing and summons is property served the court may make an order that suit will be heard ex parte (ORDER 9, RULE 6(1 )(a) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE)

If an exparte decree is passed and the defendant satisfies that he was prevented by sufficient cause then he has the following remedies open

1. Prefer appeal against decree.
2. Apply for Review.
3. Apply for setting aside the Exparte Decree.

In UCO BANK V/S. IYENGER CONSULTANCY SERVICES, 1994 (SCC) 399 (SUPPLE.) it was observed that the words “Sufficient Cause” has not been defined and it will depend on facts and  circumstances of each case.“

5. Interlocutory Proceedings :- The period involved between initiation and disposal of litigation is substantially long. The intervention of the court may sometimes be required to maintain the position as it prevailed on the date of litigation. In legal parlance it is known as "status quo”. It means preserving existing state of things on a given day.

In that context interlocutory orders are provisional, interim, temporary as compare to final. It does not finally determine cause of action but only decides some intervening  matter pertaining to the cause.

1.Arrest and attachment before judgment Order 38

2.Temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders Order 39

3.Appointment of receiver Order 40

4. Appointment of commissioner Order 26

6. Written Statement (Order 8) :-  The defendant is required to fiie written statement of his defense at or before the first hearing or such time as may be allowed 

If defendant disputes maintainability of the suit or takes the plea that the transaction is void it must be specifically stated. A general denial of grounds alleged in the plaint is not sufficient and denial has to be specific. The denial should not be an evasive denial but it must be on point of substance. Every allegation of fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleading shall be deemed to be admitted. (ORDER 8 RULE 5 OF CPC)

Before amendment 2002 in C.P.C. there was no time limit to file written statement by defendant. By amendment 2002 under order 8 rule 1 of C.P.C. defendant has to present written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons on him. Under this rule discretion  is given to court that if defendant fails to file written statement within a period of 30 days he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day which may be specified by the court but such period shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. 

By Amendment 1999 in rule 1-A of order 8 duty is casts upon the defendant to produce documents on which he bases his defense or other documents which are in his possession along with a list.Such list of documents is he supplied with frie written statement.

7. Production of Documents :-  After filing written statement by defendant the next stage of the suit is documents. On this stage both parties have to file documents in court which are in their possession or power. If parties relay on some documents which are not in their possession in that case they have to apply to court for issue of summons to authority or persons in whose possession these documents are. The parties have to deposit in court cost of such production of documents. (Process fees and bhatta).

8. Examination of parties (Order 10) :-Examination of parties is an important stage after appearance. At first hearing of the suit the court shall ascertain from each party or his pleader whether he admits or denies such allegations of fact as are made in the plaint or written statement. Such admissions and denials shall be recorded. The examination may be an oral examination. When a party, if the pleader of the party who appears, refuses or is unable to answer any material question court may direct the concerned party should remain present in the court. If the party does not remain present court may pass such orders as deemed fit (ORDER 10 OF CPC.)

Also read:- Various Stages Of Criminal Proceedings In India Under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

9. Discovery and Inspection (Order 11) :-  The purpose of discovery and inspection of document and facts is to enable the parties to ascertain the facts to be proved. With the leave of the court the plaintiff or defendant may deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of opposite parties which are required to be answered and which are related to the matter. 

10. Admission (Order 12) :-  Either party may call upon the other party to admit within seven days from the date of service of the notice, any document saving all just exception. In case of refusal or neglect to admit after such notice, the cost of proving such document shall be paid by the party, so neglecting or refusing whatever be the result of the suit may be, unless the court otherwise directs and no cost of proving any such document shall be allowed unless such notice is given, except where the omission to give the notice is in the opinion of the court a saving of expenses. The above procedure is rarely followed by the advocates of parties.

11.Framing of Issue (Order 14):-  The next stage is framing issues. The job of framing issues is exclusively assigned to a judge. Issues are framed considering provisions of order 14 rule 1 of C.P.C. 

Rule 1 sub rule (1) states, "Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other."

Sub rule (2) states, "Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defense," 

Sub rule (3) States "Each material proposition affirmed by one party denied by other shall form subject of distinct issues."
• Issues of fact 
• Issues of law.

Also read:- 18 Stages Of Divorce Proceedings In India – Step By Step Process AndProcedure Of Divorce In India

12. Summoning And Attendance Of Witnesses (Order 16) :-  On the date appointed by the court and not later than 15 days after the date on which issues are settled parties shall present in court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents.

13. Hearing Of Suits And Examination Of Witnesses (Order 18) :-  The plaintiff is entitled to have first right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of relief. In such case defendant has the right to begin. 

The plaintiff has to state his case in front of the judge. The plaintiff has to submit the evidence that was earlier marked. If any evidence was not marked earlier then it will not be considered by the court. Then the plaintiff will be cross-examined by the defendant's Advocate. The witnesses from plaintiff's side also have to appear in the court, who are also cross-examined by the defendant's lawyer. 

The defendant also presents his side of the story supported by his witnesses and evidence from his side. The evidence needs to be be marked earlier by the court, otherwise it will not be considered by the court. The plaintiff's lawyer will then cross-examine the defendant. 

14. Argument :-  As soon as evidence of both side is over then the suit is kept for argument. Once the evidence has been submitted and cross-examination is conducted by the plaintiff and defendant, both sides are allowed to present a summary of their case and evidence to the judge in the Final argument session. 

15. Judgment (Order 20) :-Judgment means the statement given by the judge on ground of which a decree is passed.

The court after the case has been heard shall pronounce judgment in open court either within one month of completion of arguments or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, and when the judgment is to be pronounced judge shall fix a day in advance for that purpose.

16. Preparation of Decree (Order 20 rule 6, 6A) :- Once the judgment is delivered by a judge a decree is to be prepared by concerned clerk. 

The decree shall agree with the judgment; it shall contain the number of the suit, the names and descriptions of the parties, their registered addresses, and particulars of the claim, and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit.

17. Appeal, Review, Revision :- 

A. Appeal :- An appeal may be an appeal from order or an appeal from decree. All orders are not appealable and complete discretion of the appealable order has been given in order 43 of the code of Civil Procedure Code. The appeal has to be preferred within  prescribed limitation period before the appellate court. The limitation period for appeal to High Court is 90 days and appeal to District Court is 30 days. If the period of limitation is expired, then application for condonation of delay also is required to be moved.

B.Review :- The right of review is having very limited scope under the Civil Procedure Code  

A review application is maintainable only when the following conditions are satisfied,

1. If involves a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed or if allowed it is not preferred.

2. The appellant was aggrieved, on the ground, that because of the discovery
of a new and important matter of evidence, which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time of decree or on account of some mistake, apparently on the face of the record, or for any sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of such decree. The other side will be granted an opportunity to be heard, when any review application has been granted.

C. Revision :- The High Court in its revision jurisdiction can interfere in any case decided by subordinate court under certain circumstances.

The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided
by subordinate court and in which no appeal lies, if such subordinate court appears - 

1. To have exercised, a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
2. To have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
3. To have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally; or with material
irregularity.

18. Execution of Decree (Order 21) :- Execution is the medium by which a decree- holder compels the judgment-debtor to carry out the mandate of the decree or order as the case may be. It enables the decree-holder to recover the fruits of the judgment. The execution is complete when the judgment-creditor or decree-holder gets money or other thing awarded to him by judgment, decree or order.


References

1.https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/59725/11/11_chapter%25206.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj_xcLt3_DXAhWIs48KHVSODvYQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw1hNUXaJrLnCTwqwwsK1WRr

2. http://www.voiceagainstcorruptsystem.com/civil-cases/civil-case-stages

3. Takwani, C.K., “Civil Procedure with LimitationAct,1963.”7thEdition. Eatern Book Compny. 

Read More

Major Grounds For Cancellation of Bail Under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 With Landmark Judgements

The provisions for cancellation of bail are contained in Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Under sub-section (5) of Section 437 of Cr. P.C any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or (2) of that section, may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody

Similarly Section 439 empowers High Court or a Court of Session to release on bail any person accused of an offence and who is in custody. Sub-section (2) of the Section 439 provides that a High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of Cr. P.C. be arrested and commit him to custody. 

Therefore, these two sections confer power on Courts for grant of bail and powers have also been conferred for cancellation of bail in appropriate and fit cases.

In V. Chinna Reddy v. N. Vidyasagar Reddy, 1982 Cri LJ 2183 it was observed that  S. 437(5) Cr. P.C. empowers the very Magistrate who has released the person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of S. 437 Cr. P.C. to direct that such person be arrested and committed to custody. Thus, this provision pertains to a Court of Magistrate but not a High Court or a Court of Session

Under sub-section (5) of Section 437 of Cr. P.C  a person who was released on bail under sub-section (1) or (2) of that section may be rearrested if the Court considers it necessary to do. As under S. 167(2) a person who has been released on the ground that he had been in custody for a period of over sixty days is deemed to be released  under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII, his release should be considered as one under S. 437 (1) or (2). Section 437(5) empowers the court to direct that the person so released may be arrested if it considers it necessary to do so. The power of the court to cancel bail if it considers it necessary is preserved in cases where a person has been released on bail under S. 437 (1) or (2) and these provisions are applicable to a person who has been released under S. 167 (2)

Object Underlying Cancellation of Bail :-

In Karan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cri LJ 251 it was observed that the object of Section 437(5), Cr. P.C. is not punitive but to protect the interest of justice and to prevent it from being tampered with in any manner by the accused. The bail granted to an accused can be cancelled if the accused, after his release on bail, tried to tamper with the evidence or hampers the trial or investigation, committing an act of violence or commits the same offence again. The power vested with the Court for cancellation of the bail have to be exercised with care and circumspection. 

The object of sub-section (5) of S. 437 of Cr. P.C. is to enable the Court, on  sufficient materials being placed before it, to cancel the bail granted or to direct that such person be arrested and committed to custody. This sub-section contemplates a situation where a person enlarged on bail has misused the freedom granted or has disobeyed the conditions imposed or has imperiled the smooth course of investigation of has done such acts as in the opinion of the Court are sufficient to cancel the bail already given.

In Surnendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004 Cri LJ 988 it was observed that the legislature while incorporating the provisions for cancellation of bail was aware that there may be cases in which the accused enlarged on bail may misuse his position after being enlarged on bail, in order to take care of that situation provisions have been incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail, so that the accused should always remain under control and always remain careful that if he will breach any of the conditions of bail imposed upon him while granting bail his bail can be cancelled and he will be put in custody again. At the same time a heavy duty has been cast on the Court that while deciding the cases of cancellation of bail the Court should satisfy its judicial conscience and in order to satisfy the judicial conscience the Court must see whether convincing grounds exits for the cancellation of bail, if these grounds exists only then and then the Court should exercise this power vested in it.

Grounds for Cancellation of Bail :-

In Nityanand Rai vs State Of Bihar & Anr 2005  it was observed that   Consideration of an application for grant of bail stands on a different footing than one for cancellation of  bail. Grounds for cancellation of bail should be those which arose after the grant of bail and should be referable to the conduct of the accused while on bail, such is not the case made out in application for cancellation of bail. 

In Mubarik Khan vs Nasir Khan on 11 November, 1997  It was observed that Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice or abuse in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justify ing the cancellation of bail. However, bail once grained should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.

Bail may also be cancelled on the following grounds ( illustrative and not exhaustive) -

1.When the person on bail is found directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer

2. When the person on bail commits similar offence or any heinous offence during the period of bail.

3. When the person on bail creates serious law and order problems in the society and he had become a hazard on the peaceful living of the people.

4. When the High Court found that there was a wrong exercise of judicial discretion to grant the accused bail.

5. When the circumstances were proved that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him, it is sufficient ground to cancel bail.

6. If the life of the accused person on bails itself be in danger.

In Ripudaman Singh v. State of Haryana,171 the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while considering the question as to which material could be accepted for the cancellation of bail by the Session Judge, observed that neither police report made to the District Attorney, nor the application field by the District Attorney, Unsupported by any affidavit, was evidence in the case and the facts stated therein ocould not be accepted as correct

In Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2004)2 SCC it was observed that mere assertion of an alleged threat to witnesses should not be utilized as a ground for cancellation of bail, routinely. Otherwise, there is ample scope for making such allegation to nullify the bail granted. The Court before which such allegations are made should in each case carefully weigh the acceptability of the allegations and pass orders as circumstances warrant in law. Such matters should be dealt with expeditiously so that actual interference with the ordinary and normal  course of justice is nipped in the bud and an irretrievable stage is not reached

In Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 2013 SC 296

It was observed that the Court is conscious that cancellation of bail is a serious matter. Bail once granted can be cancelled only when there exist very cogent and overwhelming circumstances. It is settled law that parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. However, if the Trial Court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials, bail can be cancelled.

A bail cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of allegations that the accused persons are misusing the privilege of bail when there is no other convincing material on the record for the Court to come to that conclusion

Instances Where Bail Was Cancelled:-

1. In Puran vs. Rambilas & Anr. the Supreme Court held that where in a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of the nature of causing dowry death ignoring material and evidence on record and that too without giving any reasons, bail can be cancelled. Such an order would be against the principles of law.

2. In Ohana Kuttan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala.2004 CrLJ 3453 (3457)  in case against the accused under sections 302/307/376, 273, 201, 120B for supplying spirit used in the  manufacture of illicit arrack, causing the death of seven persons and loss of eye-sight of seven others, bail was refused.

3. In Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. 2003 All LJ 1634: (2003)CrLJ 3429 (3430) (All) accused MLA facing prosecution for screening under sections 302, 307, 134, 147, 148, 149 IPC involved in 32 cases including murder and rape, the bail refused. 

4.In Bhagirathi Adiwasi Vs. State, 2004 ACC 197 (All) the accused charged for offences under sections 498A, 306, 201, alleged to have physically tortured the victim who committed suicide on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, was refused to bail.

5. In Satya Narayan Pillai vs. State of Chattisgarh,(2003) 2 All In Case 681: 2003 CrLJ 2899 (2900) Chatt. where accused was charged under section 376 IPC injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix the accused had demanded money from the husband of the  prosecutrix for screening the offender in a murder case, bail was refused.

Thus power to cancel bail and take back an accused in custody who has been enlarged on bail, though has to the exercised with care and circumspection, yet the power, though extraordinary one, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases. Refusal to exercise the wholesome power in cases, few though they may be, will reduce it to a dead letter and will suffer the Courts to be silent spectators to the subversion of the judicial process

References :-

1.https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7790/11/11_chapter%25205.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjFhoqov97XAhUKqY8KHSzyA58QFghnMAo&usg=AOvVaw3OLGKMwYST6_CZrUoOUdCV

2.http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/9-important-grounds-under-which-a-bail-may-be-cancelled/119362 

3.R.V.Kelkar,Lectures on Criminal Procedure, sixth edition

4.Ratanlal & Dhirajlal Criminal Procedure Code 

Read More