Code of Civil Procedure & Limitation Act
CPC 1908 (as amended) · Limitation Act 1963 · Complete Exam Notes
Table of Contents
02Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
03Res Judicata & Res Sub Judice
04Place of Suing (S.15–21A)
05Garnishee Orders (O.21)
06Suits by/Against Government
07Appeals — First, Second, Letters Patent
08Reference, Revision & Review
09Inherent Powers — S.151
10Key Orders (I, VI, VII, IX, XXXVII, XXXIX)
11Limitation Act 1963 — Complete
12Prescribed Cases — Digests
13Important Questions
14Quick Revision Cheatsheet
Part A — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1.1 Essential Definitions under CPC S.2
The CPC 1908 (as amended by Amendment Acts of 1976, 1999, 2002) governs procedure in civil courts in India. Key definitions in S.2:
“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.”
Essentials: (1) Formal expression of adjudication; (2) By a court; (3) In a suit; (4) Conclusive determination; (5) Regarding rights of parties.
Preliminary Decree: Determines rights but leaves some matter for further proceedings (e.g., in partition suits, mortgage suits).
Final Decree: Completely disposes of the suit.
“Judgment means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order.” It contains the reasons and grounds for the decision. A decree follows from a judgment.
“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.”
“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.”
Key: Mesne profits = profits by wrongful possessor; not profits from improvements by him.
“Order means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree.”
Decree vs. Order: Decree is in a suit; Order may be in suit or otherwise. Decree conclusively determines rights; Order may not. Only one decree per suit; many orders possible.
| Basis | Decree [S.2(2)] | Order [S.2(14)] |
|---|---|---|
| Arising from | Only in a suit | Suit or any other proceeding |
| Nature | Conclusively determines rights | May or may not determine rights |
| Number | One final decree per suit | Multiple orders in one proceeding |
| Appeal | Appeals as of right (S.96) | Appeal only against listed orders (O.43) |
| Example | Dismissal of suit with costs | Attachment before judgment |
Topic 2 — Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
2.1 Section 9 — Courts to Try All Civil Suits
“The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.”
Civil court has inherent jurisdiction to try all civil suits — unless specifically barred. Bar of jurisdiction must be express or clearly implied (not readily inferred). Key principle: exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is an exception, not the rule.
Facts: Suit for specific performance of contract for sale of agricultural land. Defendant contended plaintiff was not an agriculturist (bar under Tenancy Act S.63).
Held: Where in a civil suit an issue arises which is required to be settled by a competent authority under a special statute, the Civil Court must stay the suit and refer that issue under S.85-A of the Tenancy Act. The Civil Court cannot arrogate jurisdiction to decide issues exclusively reserved for revenue authorities.
Principle: Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction under a special statute — even in a suit otherwise cognizable — requires reference of the disputed issue to the competent authority.
2.2 Section 10 — Res Sub Judice (Stay of Suits)
“No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction.”
Conditions for Res Sub Judice (S.10):
- Two suits — previously instituted suit must be pending
- Same matter in issue — directly and substantially the same
- Same parties or parties claiming under them
- Litigating under the same title
- Previously instituted court must have jurisdiction to grant relief
Issue: Whether S.10 CPC (res sub judice) applies to a summary suit under Order 37?
Held: Section 10 applies to all suits including summary suits under Order 37. The bar under S.10 operates when the matter is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit. Court cannot proceed with trial in later suit.
Principle: Res sub judice applies to summary procedure; courts must stay the later suit.
Topic 2 (Cont.) — Res Judicata
3.1 Res Judicata — Section 11
No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
Conditions for Res Judicata:
- Former suit — matter was in issue in a previous suit
- Same parties — or parties under whom they claim, same title
- Competent court — former court had jurisdiction over the subsequent suit
- Finally decided — heard and decided on merits (not dismissed for default)
- Directly and substantially in issue — not merely collaterally
Constructive Res Judicata (Explanation IV to S.11):
Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of attack or defence in the former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue. Prevents parties from splitting causes of action.
Held: Res judicata bars relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised in former proceedings. The doctrine extends to matters that should have been raised (constructive res judicata). It is founded on the maxim: nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no man shall be vexed twice for the same cause).
Facts: Police officer dismissed; challenged dismissal in writ petition (unsuccessful). Filed fresh suit raising new grounds not raised in writ petition.
Held: The principle of constructive res judicata applies. Grounds available and not raised in earlier proceedings are barred in subsequent litigation. The fresh suit was barred even though the specific grounds were not raised earlier — they should have been.
| Feature | Res Judicata (S.11) | Res Sub Judice (S.10) |
|---|---|---|
| Stage | After final decision of former suit | During pendency of former suit |
| Effect | Bars subsequent suit on same issue | Stays subsequent suit till former decided |
| Basis | Matter finally decided | Matter pending decision |
| Policy | Finality of litigation | Avoid conflicting decisions |
| Foreign court | Applies (Explanation to S.11) | Does not apply |
Topic 3 — Place of Suing
4.1 Territorial Jurisdiction
- S.15: Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it
- S.16: Suits regarding immovable property — where property situate
- S.17: Property in different jurisdictions — any court where property is situated
- S.19: Suits for wrong done to person/movable property — where wrong was done OR where defendant resides/carries on business
- S.20: Other suits — where defendant resides/carries on business, OR where cause of action wholly/partly arises
- S.21A: No appeal on ground of jurisdiction of place of suing without objection at trial stage
Immovable property: Where property situate (S.16)
Personal wrongs: Where wrong done OR defendant resides (S.19)
Contract suits: Where contract made/to be performed OR defendant resides (S.20)
Key: S.20 is the residuary provision — applies where S.16-19 don’t apply.
Topic 4 — Garnishee Orders
5.1 Garnishee Orders
A garnishee order is issued by a court at the instance of a judgment-creditor directing a third party (garnishee) who owes money to the judgment-debtor, to pay the money to the court instead of the judgment-debtor.
Procedure (O.21, R.46A–46I):
- Judgment-creditor applies — court may make garnishee order nisi (show cause)
- Garnishee served — directed to appear and show cause
- If garnishee does not dispute — order absolute; pays court
- If garnishee disputes debt — issue tried as ordinary suit
- Payment by garnishee to court discharges his liability to judgment-debtor
Garnishee order operates on debts “due or accruing due” — not future or contingent debts. Bank deposits are attachable. Salary is partially attachable (leave enough for reasonable sustenance).
Topic 5 — Suits By/Against Government
6.1 Government Suits
In a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant shall be the Union of India (for Central Government suits) or the State (for State Government suits).
No suit shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice has been delivered/left at the office of:
- A Secretary to Government — for Central/State Government
- The Collector — for suits against the State
- The public officer himself — for acts in official capacity
Urgent relief exception (S.80(2)): Where immediate relief required (injunction), suit may be filed without notice; notice to be served after filing.
Notice must state: cause of action, name/address/description of plaintiff, relief claimed. Strict compliance required — suit without notice is not maintainable. But notice is directory, not jurisdictional — technical defects may be waived. S.80(2) allows urgent relief without prior notice.
Topic 6 — Appeals
7.1 First Appeal — Section 96
Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
No appeal from consent decree. S.96(3): No appeal lies from a decree passed with consent of parties.
7.2 Second Appeal — Section 100
An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
At the time of admission, the High Court must formulate the substantial question of law.
Test for “substantial question of law”: A question of law is substantial if it is of general public importance or directly and substantially affects the rights of parties and if not raised it would occasion a failure of justice. It must not be a pure question of fact. It must be a debatable question — not already settled by the highest court.
Key principle: Second appeal lies only on substantial question of law, not on facts or on settled questions of law.
7.3 Production of Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage — O.XLI, R.27
Parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence in appeal unless:
- Evidence was refused wrongly by the Court below
- The party was unable to produce evidence notwithstanding due diligence
- The appellate court requires it to enable it to pronounce judgment
The appellate court must record reasons for admitting additional evidence.
Topic 7 — Reference, Revision & Review
8.1 Reference — Section 113
Subject to limitations, any Court may state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court. A Court of small causes cannot do so. Reference lies if the court entertains reasonable doubt about a question of law.
8.2 Review — Section 114 & Order XLVII
Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree/order. O.XLVII provides grounds: discovery of new/important matter, mistake/error apparent on face of record, sufficient cause.
Held: Review jurisdiction is narrow. An “error apparent on the face of the record” must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish it. Review is not a second appeal. The power of review must not be exercised unless there is a glaring omission or patent mistake in the judgment.
8.3 Revision — Section 115
The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears:
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity —
the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.
Post-2002 Amendment: Revision under S.115 does not lie where appeal lies.
| Feature | Reference (S.113) | Review (S.114/O.47) | Revision (S.115) |
|---|---|---|---|
| By whom | Subordinate court suo motu | Same court on application | High Court on application |
| To whom | High Court | Same court | High Court examines record |
| Ground | Doubt on question of law | New evidence/error on record | Jurisdictional error |
| When | Pending proceedings | After decree/order | After case decided, no appeal |
| Power | HC gives opinion; case continues | Rectification by same court | HC may make any order |
Topic 8 — Inherent Powers of Court
9.1 Section 151 — Inherent Powers
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.”
Held: S.151 preserves inherent power of court to do justice. However, inherent powers cannot be exercised to override express provisions of the Code. It is a residuary power — available only when no other provision covers the situation. The power cannot be used to grant relief which is expressly refused by the Code.
Principle: Inherent power fills gaps; it cannot override express provisions.
Applications of S.151:
- Recall order passed without jurisdiction/notice
- Consolidate suits for convenient trial
- Stay proceedings to prevent injustice
- Restore dismissed suits where dismissal was improper
- Correct clerical/arithmetic errors in judgments
Topic 9–14 — Key Orders of CPC
10.1 Order I — Parties to Suits
- R.1: All persons may be joined as plaintiffs where right to relief arises out of same act/transaction and common question of law or fact
- R.3: Persons may be joined as defendants where alleged liability arises from same act/transaction and common question of law or fact
- Misjoinder: Adding party not connected — court may strike out; not a ground to dismiss suit
- Non-joinder: No suit to be defeated by misjoinder/non-joinder; court may add party at any stage
10.2 Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of Pleadings
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Proviso (2002 Amendment): No application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial.
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply Co. (AIR 1969 SC 1267): Amendment should be allowed if it raises real issues for decision; technicalities should not defeat justice.
B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai (2000 1 SCC 712): Amendment should be allowed liberally before trial; after trial commenced, only if due diligence could not have discovered the matter. Amendment cannot set up a new/inconsistent case that defeats accrued rights.
10.3 Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint
Court shall reject plaint where:
- (a) Does not disclose cause of action
- (b) Relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected when directed
- (c) Insufficiently stamped and not corrected when directed
- (d) Suit appears from statement in plaint to be barred by any law
- (e) Not filed in duplicate
Held: For purpose of O.VII R.11, Court must read the plaint as a whole. The question is whether, taking the plaint as it stands, it discloses a cause of action. Rejection under R.11(d) — plaint is barred by law — must be apparent on face of plaint without taking evidence. Court should not reject plaint on grounds of merits.
10.4 Order IX — Non-Appearance of Parties
- R.6: If defendant does not appear — court may pronounce judgment or make such order as it thinks fit
- R.7: If plaintiff does not appear — suit dismissed; but defendant entitled to a decree if his has a counterclaim
- R.13: Setting aside ex parte decree — defendant may apply within 30 days showing sufficient cause for non-appearance; if no service properly, no time limit
Held: An ex parte decree passed against a party who was not served or improperly served can be set aside at any time under O.IX R.13 or under S.151. The word “sufficient cause” must be interpreted liberally. The court must weigh whether defendant acted promptly once he came to know of the decree.
10.5 Order XXXVII — Summary Procedure
Applies to suits upon bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes; and suits in which plaintiff seeks recovery of debt or liquidated demand in money payable by defendant with or without interest.
Defendant may not defend without leave of court — must apply within 10 days of service of summons for judgment to defend suit. Court grants leave if defendant shows triable issue.
Held: In a summary suit, the defendant applying for leave to defend must show a real or bona fide triable issue. Leave should be unconditional if defendant’s case is plausible; conditional (deposit) if not clearly frivolous but not strong enough. Frivolous defences should be rejected. Court should not grant leave as a matter of course.
10.6 Order XXXIX — Temporary Injunctions
Court may grant temporary injunction where: (1) Property in suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated; (2) Defendant threatens to dispose of property to defraud creditors; (3) Defendant threatens to commit breach of contract/other injury; (4) Where interest of justice requires.
Rule 3: Notice of application to be given to opposite party before grant (except in urgent cases).
Three-Part Test for Temporary Injunction:
Three conditions for temporary injunction:
- Prima facie case: Plaintiff must show a prima facie case in his favour — not necessarily strong; just arguable
- Irreparable injury: Balance of convenience — if injunction not granted, plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss not compensable in money
- Balance of convenience: Inconvenience to plaintiff if injunction refused greater than inconvenience to defendant if granted
Part B — The Limitation Act, 1963
11.1 Object and Nature of Limitation
The Limitation Act 1963 bars remedy after expiry of limitation period — it does not extinguish the right. The right survives but remedy is lost. Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt — law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.
11.2 Section 3 — Bar of Limitation
Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and every application made, after the prescribed period of limitation shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
Key: Court must dismiss even if limitation not pleaded. But court takes notice only when plea raised or apparent from face of plaint.
Held: The Limitation Act extinguishes the remedy, not the right. A debt barred by limitation is still a valid debt — it merely cannot be enforced. Payment of a time-barred debt is valid and not recoverable back. A time-barred debt can be used as set-off if it accrued before the claim became time-barred.
11.3 Section 5 — Extension of Limitation (Sufficient Cause)
Any appeal or any application (other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure) may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant/applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Note: S.5 applies to appeals and applications — NOT to suits. For suits, S.14 (exclusion of time) and S.17 (fraud) apply.
Held: The expression “sufficient cause” must be construed liberally. Rules of limitation should not be applied with pedantic rigour when the facts justify extension. Government or public bodies should not get special treatment. The court must weigh all factors. Where there is genuine difficulty in understanding the limitation period or where the delay is due to circumstances beyond control, extension must be granted.
Principles laid down:
- Ordinarily claimant seeking condonation not to be treated as having been negligent
- Substantive justice is more important than technical considerations
- Government is not entitled to special treatment
- Every day’s delay must be explained
Held: Merely because a government department is involved does not justify condonation of delay without explaining each day of delay. Government must be equally diligent. Bona fide mistake of law, if genuine, may be “sufficient cause.”
11.4 Computation of Limitation — Section 12
In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded; and, where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a holiday, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day next after such holiday.
Time for obtaining copy of decree/order is excluded when computing period for appeal.
11.5 Effect of Fraud — Section 17
Where a suit or application is based upon fraud of the defendant, limitation begins to run only when plaintiff first knew of the fraud, or could by reasonable diligence have discovered it.
Where suit/application based on mistake of fact — limitation begins when plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the mistake.
11.6 Effect of Acknowledgment — Section 18
Where, before the expiry of the limitation period, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed — a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time of acknowledgment.
Key Requirements: Must be before expiry of limitation; must be in writing; signed by party against whom claim is made; must acknowledge liability (not necessarily quantify it).
11.7 Effect of Payment — Section 19
Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiry of the prescribed period by the person liable — a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made.
11.8 Acquisition of Ownership by Possession — Sections 25–27
S.25: Suit for possession of immovable property based on possessory title — limitation 12 years from when possession becomes adverse.
S.27: At the determination of the period, the right of the person to institute a suit for possession extinguishes.
Held: A person who claims adverse possession must prove: (1) hostile possession — without title, against the true owner’s will; (2) actual, visible, open, uninterrupted and continuous possession; (3) for the full statutory period of 12 years. Under Art.65 of Limitation Act Schedule, limitation for suit to recover possession based on title is 12 years. The true owner’s title is extinguished upon lapse of limitation.
11.9 Schedule — Important Articles
| Article | Description | Limitation Period | Starts From |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art.17 | For price of goods sold and delivered | 3 years | When price becomes payable |
| Art.36 | Suit on mortgage | 30 years (12 for foreclosure) | Date of mortgage |
| Art.54 | Specific performance of contract | 3 years | Date fixed for performance / refusal |
| Art.58 | Suit for declaration | 3 years | Right to sue accrues |
| Art.65 | Possession of immovable property by owner | 12 years | Adverse possession begins |
| Art.113 | Any suit for which no period prescribed | 3 years | Right to sue accrues |
| Art.116 | Appeal from decree/order | 30/90 days | Date of decree/order |
| Art.127 | Execution of decree | 12 years | Decree becomes enforceable |
| Art.137 | Application where no period prescribed | 3 years | Right to apply accrues |
Held: Art.137 of Limitation Act is the residuary article for applications where no other period is prescribed. It provides 3 years from when right to apply accrues. The article applies to all applications under CPC, CRPC and other laws unless a specific article covers them.
Important Questions for Examination
DU LLB III Term · LB-302 · CPC & Limitation Act
Short Answer Questions — Part A: CPC
- Define ‘Decree’ under S.2(2) CPC. Distinguish between a decree and an order.
- What is ‘Mesne Profits’ under S.2(12) CPC? Who can claim mesne profits?
- Explain the doctrine of Res Judicata under S.11 CPC. What is constructive res judicata?
- Distinguish between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice. State conditions for each.
- What is a Garnishee Order? Explain the procedure under O.XXI R.46A–46I.
- What notice is required before suing the Government under S.80 CPC? What are the consequences of non-compliance?
- Explain the grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- What is the test for ‘Substantial Question of Law’ under S.100 CPC for Second Appeal? Refer to Chunilal Mehta case.
- Distinguish between Reference (S.113), Review (S.114) and Revision (S.115) under CPC.
- Explain the nature and limits of the inherent power of courts under S.151 CPC.
- What are the conditions for grant of temporary injunction under O.XXXIX? Explain the three-part test.
- Explain the procedure in a summary suit under Order XXXVII. When is leave to defend granted?
Short Answer Questions — Part B: Limitation
- What is the effect of expiry of limitation under S.3 Limitation Act? Does it extinguish the right or only the remedy?
- What is ‘sufficient cause’ under S.5 Limitation Act for condoning delay? Explain with reference to Katiji case.
- Explain the rules of computation of limitation under S.12 Limitation Act regarding exclusion of time.
- What are the requirements for a valid acknowledgment under S.18 Limitation Act to extend limitation?
- What is adverse possession? What are the requirements for acquiring title by adverse possession under S.25–27?
- Explain the significance of Art.113 and Art.137 of the Limitation Schedule.
Long Answer / Essay Questions
- Discuss the doctrine of Res Judicata under S.11 CPC in detail. Examine constructive res judicata and its application. Refer to State of UP v. Nawab Hussain and Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali.
- Explain the law relating to appeals under CPC — first appeal (S.96), second appeal (S.100), and Letters Patent Appeal. What is the test for ‘substantial question of law’? Discuss with case law.
- Discuss the power of Civil Courts to grant temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX of CPC. What are the conditions? How do courts balance competing interests? Refer to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh.
- Explain the scope of inherent powers of civil courts under S.151 CPC. Can inherent power be used to override express provisions of CPC? Discuss with case law including Mahant Ram Dass v. Mahant Ganga Dass.
- Explain the law of limitation relating to extension/condonation of delay under S.5 Limitation Act. Is the Government entitled to more liberal treatment? Discuss with reference to Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji and State of MP v. Bherulal.
- Discuss the effect of acknowledgment (S.18) and payment (S.19) on limitation periods. What are the requirements for a valid acknowledgment? Can oral acknowledgment suffice? Refer to relevant case law.
- Examine the law on adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1963. What constitutes ‘adverse possession’? Discuss Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjeet Kaur and the impact on property rights.
- Explain the summary procedure under Order XXXVII CPC. When can a defendant get leave to defend? What is the difference between unconditional and conditional leave? Discuss IDBI Trusteeship Services v. Hubtown Ltd.
MCQs — CPC & Limitation Act
-
1. Section 10 CPC (Res Sub Judice) applies to:(a) Pending appeal(b) Pending suit(c) Executed decree(d) Revision petition✓ Answer: (b) Pending suit in same/other court
-
2. An ex parte decree can be set aside under:(a) O.IX R.6(b) O.IX R.13(c) S.151(d) Both (b) and (c)✓ Answer: (d) Both O.IX R.13 and S.151
-
3. Second appeal under S.100 CPC lies only on:(a) Question of fact(b) Substantial question of law(c) Mixed question(d) Any question✓ Answer: (b) Substantial question of law
-
4. The period of limitation for suits based on acknowledgment under S.18 starts from:(a) Date of original right(b) Date of acknowledgment(c) Date of suit(d) Date of default✓ Answer: (b) Date of written acknowledgment (fresh period)
-
5. Section 5 Limitation Act extension of time does NOT apply to:(a) First appeal(b) Second appeal(c) Suits(d) Applications✓ Answer: (c) Suits — S.5 applies only to appeals and applications
-
6. Inherent power under S.151 CPC can be exercised to:(a) Override express provisions(b) Fill gaps not covered by Code(c) Grant relief refused by Code(d) All of the above✓ Answer: (b) Fill gaps not expressly covered by CPC
-
7. Notice under S.80 CPC before suit against government must be given at least:(a) One month(b) Two months(c) Three months(d) No notice needed✓ Answer: (b) Two months
-
8. Limitation period for adverse possession of immovable property is:(a) 3 years(b) 6 years(c) 12 years(d) 30 years✓ Answer: (c) 12 years — Art.65 Limitation Schedule
-
9. For amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial (O.VI R.17 proviso), the party must show:(a) Any just cause(b) Due diligence could not raise it earlier(c) New evidence discovered(d) Opponent’s consent✓ Answer: (b) Due diligence — could not have raised it before trial
-
10. Residuary article for applications (no period prescribed) under Limitation Act is:(a) Art.113(b) Art.127(c) Art.137(d) Art.116✓ Answer: (c) Art.137 — 3 years from when right to apply accrues
Quick Revision Cheatsheet
Mnemonic — Res Judicata Conditions (S.11)
Competent court decided it · Finally heard and decided ·
Hearing between same parties/title
Mnemonic — Temporary Injunction Test (O.XXXIX)
Mnemonic — Rejection of Plaint Grounds (O.VII R.11)
Key Definitions — Quick Reference
- Decree [S.2(2)] — formal expression; conclusively determines rights
- Judgment [S.2(9)] — grounds/reasons of a decree or order
- Order [S.2(14)] — any decision that is not a decree
- Mesne Profits [S.2(12)] — profits by wrongful possessor
- Legal Representative [S.2(11)] — represents estate of deceased
- Preliminary decree — determines rights; more steps needed
- Final decree — completely disposes of suit
Res Judicata vs. Res Sub Judice
- Res Judicata (S.11) — final decision; bars second suit
- Res Sub Judice (S.10) — pending suit; stays second suit
- Constructive RJ — matters that should have been raised
- S.10 — no foreign court; S.11 — includes foreign court
- Both require same parties + same matter + same title
- Nawab Hussain — constructive RJ on new grounds
- Indian Bank — S.10 applies to summary suits (O.37)
Appeals — Hierarchy
- First Appeal (S.96) — from original decree; on facts + law
- Second Appeal (S.100) — HC; only substantial question of law
- No appeal from consent decree (S.96(3))
- Additional evidence in appeal — O.XLI R.27 (limited grounds)
- Test: Chunilal Mehta — debatable, general importance
- Orders: O.43 lists appealable orders
- Letters Patent Appeal — special to each HC
Reference / Review / Revision
- Reference (S.113) — subordinate court → HC on legal doubt
- Review (S.114/O.47) — same court; new evidence / apparent error
- Revision (S.115) — HC; jurisdictional error; no appeal available
- Haridas Das — error apparent = self-evident, not debatable
- S.115 post-2002: no revision if appeal lies
- Review ≠ second appeal; limited scope
- Reference — HC gives opinion; lower court then decides
Limitation Act — Key Rules
- S.3 — bar of limitation; court dismisses even without plea
- S.5 — condonation; applies to appeals/applications NOT suits
- S.12 — computation; exclude day 0; holidays extended
- S.17 — fraud/mistake; limitation from discovery
- S.18 — written acknowledgment; fresh period from date
- S.19 — payment; fresh period from date of payment
- Art.65 — adverse possession; 12 years
- Art.137 — residuary applications; 3 years
Key Cases — Flash Reference
- Gundaji Shinde — S.9; bar of civil court; refer to revenue authority
- Indian Bank — S.10 applies to O.37 summary suits
- Iftikhar Ahmed — res judicata; twice-vexed rule
- Nawab Hussain — constructive res judicata
- Chunilal Mehta — substantial question of law for S.100
- Haridas Das — narrow scope of review
- Mahant Ram Dass — S.151 fills gaps; cannot override express provision
- Dalpat Kumar — PIB test for injunction
- Katiji — liberal construction of S.5 sufficient cause
- Ravinder Kaur Grewal — adverse possession requirements
- IDBI Trusteeship — leave to defend in O.37 suits
- Saleem Bhai — O.VII R.11 rejection; read plaint as whole