ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
PROJECT TOPIC: THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT)
ACT, 2002: DECODING THE USE
SUBMITTED BY: TRISHA MUKHERJEE
ROLL NO. : 1511
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher. Mrs.Shefali Dixit who gave
me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic “ Civil Procedure Code
(Amendment) Act, 2002: Decoding the Use”, which also helped me in doing a lot of Research
and I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them.
2
ABSTRACT
The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is deemed to be one of the primary procedural laws in India
which is neither involved in taking away the rights nor in engendering, it is solely into regulating
the court procedure. The CPC has been majorly amended in 1951 and 1956. It was further
modified according to the changing needs of the society in 1976, 1999 and in 2002 (Based on the
Law Commission reports).
INTRODUCTION
CPC is a collated code incorporating the various laws in its sphere but it is not exhaustive within
it. Courts are to be guided by principles of equity and justice while dealing with scenarios for
which the existing code may not be enough. Thus, the court’s ability to take such decisions is
deemed necessary in its objective of preventing any miscarriage of justice.
Various judgments in this regard can be to ascertain the aforementioned purpose of the code such
as Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal1 wherein the apex court discussed about the need for a
more liberal understanding of CPC for justice to be delivered in its most apt manner. Only
through these adjective laws, the concept of fair trial and natural justice can be executed in
reality and without these ideas in context; the court trial is deemed to be invalid and null. This
project shall deal with all the important principles and doctrines enshrined in the Code that make
it an efficient procedural law alongside all the amendments through which the changing needs of
our society have been dealt with and the law made even more robust and justice oriented.
Classification of law can be broadly distinguished on its substantive and adjective aspects. The
substantive law qualifies as the legal framework which deals with the defining of the legal status,
establishment of the rights and duties of citizens and its extent.
1
1955 AIR 425
3
However, the adjective law deals with the procedure involved in establishing these rights. The
Civil Procedural Code, 1908 falls into this category of adjective law.
The law can be broadly classified as –
1. Substantive Law, and
2. Procedural Law.
The Substantive Law, whether it is based on statute law or common law, defines what facts are
constituting a fact or liability.2 To say, in other words, the Substantive law defines various
principles regarding the rights and liabilities. (Example: The Indian Penal Code, 1860 which
describes various offenses punishable under Criminal acts).
On the contrary, the Procedural law or adjective law, on the other hand, prescribes the procedure
and machinery for the enforcement of those rights and liabilities. To say, in other words, the
procedural law is concerned with enforcement of those rights and liabilities determined in
accordance with the rules of the substantive law.3 (Example: The Code of Civil Procedure 1908,
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 etc).
The Law regulating the procedure to be followed in civil court is governed by the Civil
Procedure Code and this Civil Procedure Code is one of the most important branches of the
procedural law.As we all know, “Ignorance of law is not a defense” and every Indian should
know the laws of this nation
Law is dynamic. This means that law is subjected to the changes to meet the demanding needs of
the society to which it concerns. It is subjected to changes to redress the balance. Though the law
is subjected to changes, the paramount principle of law on which it lies upon is based on the
Latin maxim “salus populi suprema lex esto” which means “the good of the people shall be the
supreme law”.
2
3
Mulla – The Code Of Civil Procedure
Mulla – The Code Of Civil Procedure
4
HISTORY OF THE CODE
Till 1859, in India, there was no uniform codified law for the procedures to be followed in Civil
Courts. In those old days, under the British rule, there were Crown Courts in Presidency towns
and Provincial Courts in Mofussils
These Courts in Mofussil areas and Presidency towns were governed by different systems of
Civil procedure through various rules, regulations and special acts and those were changed
on time to time basis on the basis of circumstances and needs.4
For the first time in 1859, a uniform civil procedure Code was introduced by passing the Civil
Procedure Code (Act VII of 1859). But this code could not serve the purpose as this code was
not made applicable to the Supreme Courts (Crown Courts under the Royal Charter) and the
Sadar Diwani Adalats (Principal Courts under the Judicial Plan by the Governor General).
In 1861, the Indian High Courts Act was passed and the Supreme Courts and Sadar Diwani
Adalats were abolished.5 Then the High Courts were established by replacing the Supreme
Courts at Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. Then the Civil Procedure Code 1859 made applicable
to these newly established High Courts.
The Code of 1859 was amended regularly from time to time and was replaced by passing the
Civil Procedure Code, 1877. This code of 1877 was amended in 1878 and 1879 and the third
civil procedure Code was enacted in 1882, which replaced the previous code. The Code of Civil
Procedure 1882 was also amended several times and ultimately the present code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 was passed overshadowing the defects of the Code of 1882.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: MEANING AND OBJECT
The Law relating to the practices and procedure to be followed in the Civil Courts is regulated by
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The word code means ‘a systematic collection of
statutes, body of laws so arranged as to avoid inconsistency and overlapping‘.
4
5
K. Rai – History of Courts, Legislature & Legal Profession of India
LexisGreen Civil Procedure: Law Books & Bare Acts on a Pen Drive
5
The main object of this civil procedure code is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the
procedure and practices followed in the Civil Courts in India. As such, it was enshrined in the
preamble of the code that it was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the
procedure to be followed in the civil courts having civil jurisdiction in India. The Civil
Procedure Code regulates every action in civil courts and the parties before it till the execution
of the degree and order.
The Aim of the Procedural law is to implement the principles of Substantive law.6 This Code
ensures fair justice by enforcing the rights and liabilities.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: EXTENT AND APPLICATION
The Civil Procedure Code was passed in 1908 and came into force from 1st January 1909. The
Code is applicable to the whole country except –
1. The State of Jammu and Kashmir
2. The state of Nagaland and the tribal areas7
There is also a provision that the concerned state governments may make the provisions of this
code applicable to the whole or part of the State of Nagaland or such tribal areas by notification
in the official gazette. This code is applicable in the scheduled areas of the erstwhile State of
Madras (Lakshadweep), the East Godavari, West Godavari and Visakhapatnam agencies (Now
in Andhra Pradesh State).
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: SCOPE
The Code is exhaustive on the matters directly dealt by it but it is comprehensive in other issues.
The framers of the code could not foresee the possible circumstances which may arise in the
future litigations and could not provide the procedure for such situations. Hence the framers of
6
7
LexisGreen Civil Procedure: Law Books & Bare Acts on a Pen Drive
Sukumar Ray – Textbook On The Code Of Civil Procedure
6
the code (legislature) provided inherent powers to the court to meet such circumstances (where
the code could not provide a procedure) according to the principles of natural justice, equity and
good conscience.
As this Code is a general procedural law, it does not contradict with the local or special law in
force. In the event of any conflict between the civil procedure code and the special law, the
special law will prevail over the civil procedure code. In case the local or general law is silent on
any matter, then the provisions of the civil procedure code will prevail.8
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: SCHEME
The Code has two parts and they are –
The Body of the Code has 12 parts containing 158 sections. The Schedule is the second part
containing orders and rules.
The Body of the Code lays down general principles relating to Power of the court, and in the
case of the second part, that is, the Schedule provides for the procedures, methods and
manners in which the jurisdiction of the court may be exercised.
In fact, there were five schedules when this code was enacted. Later the Schedules II, III, IV and
V were repealed by the subsequent amendments of the code. The first schedule which is the only
schedule to the code now has 51 orders. Each order contains rules that vary in numbers from
order to order. The various High Courts are empowered to alter or add any rules in
the schedules under Section 122 to 127, 129, 130 and 131 and such new rules should not be
inconsistent with the provisions of the body of the code.9
The Provisions of the Body of the code can be amended only by the legislature and the Courts
can not alter or amend the body of the code.
8
9
Bare Act – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bare Act – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
7
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: AN AMENDMENT OF 2002
The Code of Civil Procedure dates back to 1908 which governs the entire spectrum of civil
fraternity suits. From the date of its enforcement, it has been amended many times for the speedy
and expeditious trial of the suits. Despite the radical changes in due course of time, the society
still faced the delaying issues due to humongous pending lawsuits in the court. The Central
Government initiated a step ahead to curtail down the future situations and thus, introduced
certain amendments to the Code.
Because of the delay in delivering justice experienced by the litigants at various levels, the
Parliament introduced the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.
The failure of the objective of The Amendment Act of 1999, i.e., speedy and expeditious trial
resulted in The Amendment Act of 2002 which was enacted to reduce the delays faced at the
different levels of the litigation. It is one of the Parliamentary efforts at making litigation in our
country more effective and speedy. In the light of the Amendment Act of 1999 came the
Amendment Act of 2002 which became effective from 1st July, 2002. After the long wait, the
Parliament made some radical changes for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the
Code.
Arun Jaitley, introduced a new amendment Bill in 2002, taking into account the suggestions
made by bar representatives, political parties and the Law Commissions. The Parliamentary
Standing Committee recommended the other changes. The new Bill was adopted by both the
Houses of Parliament in May, 2002. Following Presidential assent, the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act,2002 was notified and came into effect.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002
A. SECTION 39: TRANSFER OF DECREE

Section 39 lays down the conditions under which a decree can be sent.
8

In dealing with an application for transfer of a decree to another Court for execution two
aspects must be kept in view, first, that a decree-holder has a legal, not merely an equitable
right to have his decree transferred for execution, and secondly, at the same time, that the
section is not mandatory.

But the Court is given a judicial discretion in the matter, as is shown from the word “may” in
the section. Thus if the demand for transfer is lawful, the fact that the motive for the
application for transfer is to put pressure on one of the judgment-debtors is no ground for
refusing the application for transfer.

The Government of India requested the Law Commission to take a comprehensive revision of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In January, 1998, the Commission took up the subject and
decided to do the exercise in two phases. In the first phase, the Commission reviewed the
amendments suggested by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997. In the
second phase of the work, the Commission took up the revision of the entire Code as a
comprehensive revision of Code as the whole would take longer time.

On the recommendations of Law Commission made in 163rd Report, headed by B.P. Jeevan
Reddy, the present sub-section (4) has been added to Section 39 to clarify that nothing in the
section shall be construed as authority the Court to execute a decree against a person or
property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction.

The question of consideration was that “the Section uses the word “may” which led to a
debate whether the Court sending the decree to another Court is discretionary?”.

It was recommended by the Law Commission that “the use of “may” in Section 39 does not
mean that the Court, which passed the decree, can execute the decrees irrespective of
territorial limitations. The word “may” is meant for cases where there are circumstances in
which execution as such is considered illegal. Another view would upset the entire scheme of
the Code as to jurisdiction. It seems desirable to clarify the position by inserting an
Explanation below Section 39 to provide that nothing in the section shall be construed as an
authority in the Court to execute a decree against a person or property outside the local limits
of its jurisdiction. We recommend accordingly”.
9
B. SECTION 64: PRIVATE ALIENATION OF PROPERTY TO BE VOID

Sub-section (2) has been added on the recommendations of the Law Commission made in 54th
Report, pages 51-52. As a result of the amendment, a transfer made in pursuance of a registered
agreement shall override the attachment if the agreement precedes the attachment.

The Law Commission recommended that the following exception should be added below
Section 64:
“Exception – Nothing in this section applies to any private transfer or delivery of the property
attached or of any interest therein, made in execution of any contract for such transfer or
delivery entered into and registered before the attachment”.

By the Amendment Act of 2002, the Section was renumbered as sub-section (1) and subsection (2) and the following shall be inserted namely :
“(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any private transfer or delivery of the property
attached or of any interest therein, made in pursuance of any contract for such transfer or
delivery entered into and registered before the attachment”.

The legal spirit that lies behind this section is to prevent fraud on the part of the decree-holders
and secure the rights of the attaching creditor against the attached property by prohibiting
private alienations pending attachments.

It enacts the rule that a private alienation of property after attachment is void as against claims
enforceable under the attachment.

This section makes no distinction between attachment of property before judgment is given and
an attachment in execution of a decree.
C. SECTION 100A: NO FUTHER APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES

The Section was substituted by the Amendment Act of 1999 for the following:
10

“Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other
instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any
appeal from an appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High
Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment, decision or order of such Single Judge in
such appeal or from any decree passed in such appeal”.

The present section has been substituted for the substituted Section 100A, by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act,2002.

As a result of the 2002 Act, appeals to division Bench of the High Courts in writs under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been restored.

The net result of the 1999 and 2002 Amendment is that where any appeal from an original or
appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further
appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single Judge; appeals to Division Bench
of the High Court in such cases has been abolished.

Though this substitution raised many prenotions, it widened the scope of Section 100A so far as
a restriction on the right of further appeal is concerned.
D. ORDER V: ISSUE AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Order V of the Code provides for issue and service of summons. The Malimath Committee
looked into the problem of the shortfall of cases in the Courts and recommended amendments
to the Code intending to lay down a fixed time frame within which pleadings can be completed.

The Amendment Act of 2002 amended Rule 1 [Summons], Rule 9 [Delivery of summons by
Court] and Rule 9A [Summons given to the plaintiff for service] of Order V .

The effect of substituted sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 is that summons are required to be issued to the
defendant for appearance and answering the claim of the plaintiff on institution of a suit by the
plaintiff set out in the plaint by filing written statement of his defence within 30 days from the
day of the institution of the suit except in a few situations.

The first proviso to the sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 provides that no summons are required to be
issued when the defendant has appeared at the presentation of the plaint and admitted the
plaintiff’s claim.
11

The second proviso to the substituted sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 provides that if the defendant does
not file the written statement within 30 days of the presentation of the plaint, he may be
allowed to file the same, for reasons to be recorded in writing, which shall not exceed ninety
days from the date of service of summons.

Rule 9 of Order V was substituted by Rules 9 and 9A of the Amendment Act of 2002.

Sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 prescribes two different situations as to the delivery of
the summons to the defendant. Firstly, if the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the
Courtin which the suit is instituted or his agent, the summon shall be delivered by the proper
officer or such courier services as are approved by the Court. Secondly, if the defendant resides
outside the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted , the Court may direct the
service of summon by delivering the copy by speed post or by such courier services as are
approved by the High Court or by any other means of transmission of documents including fax
message or electronic mail service, which shall be made at the expenses of the plaintiff
(Proviso to sub-rule (3).

Sometimes, the defendant or his agent refuses or intentionally neglects the delivery of the
summon which leads to delay in service of summons. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 curbs this situation
and states that if the Court receives an acknowledgement or any other receipt purporting to be
signed by the defendant or his agent endorsed by the postal employee that defendant or his
agent has refused to take the delivery of the postal or had refused to take accept the summon
when tendered to him, the Court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been
duly served on the defendant.

The Registered Post Acknowledgement Due can also make the service of summon.

Rule 9 empowers the High Court or the District Court to prepare a panel of the courier agencies
for service of summons.

To avoid the delay in delivery of summons, the Court empowered the plaintiff for the service of
summons under Rule 9A. It states that the Court, in addition to Rule 9, on an application of
plaintiff may allow him service of summon for the appearance of the defendant.

Such service of summon by the plaintiff shall be effected by delivery of summon to the
defendant personally a copy signed by the Judge and sealed with the seal of the Court or any
mode of service prescribed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 9.
12
E. ORDER VI: PLEADING GENERALLY

Rule 17 [Amendment of pleadings] and Rule 18 [Failure to amend after order]
were substituted by Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.

By the Amendment Act of 2002, the provision has been restored in Rule 17. The provision for
the amendment has been given back to the Court with certain limitations. A new provision has
been added to the rule, namely that no application for amendment of the pleadings shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court concludes that in spite of due diligence,
the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

Thus, after the trial of the case has been commenced, no application for amendment of the
pleadings shall be allowed unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

The principal object of the rule is that the Courts should get at and try the merits of the case that
comes before them and should consequently allow all the amendments that may be necessary
for determining the real question in controversy between the parties without causing injustice
to the other side.

By the Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, Rule 18 was omitted. By Code Of
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, the old Rule 18 verbatim has been restored.

Rule 18 states that if a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend
accordingly within the time limited for the purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited
then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after
the expiration of such limited period or of such fourteen days, unless the time is extended by
the Court.
F. ORDER VII: PLAINT
 By Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, Rule 9 [Procedure on admitting plaint],
Rule 11 [Rejection of plaint] and Rule 14 [Production of document on which plaintiff sues or
relies of Order VII were amended and Rule 18 [Inadmissibility of document not produced when
plaint filed] was omitted.
13
 Unde the new rule 9, the Court will direct the plaintiff to present copies of the plaint within
a period of seven days from the date of the order along with the requisite process fee for service
on the defendant(s). Under the old rule, no time limit was prescribed.
 The new rule intended to expedite the delay, which the plaintiff often caused in taking steps for
the service of summons on the defendant. Further under the old rule, there was provision
requiring the plaintiff to endorse on the plaint or to annex thereto, the list of the documents
which he had filed along with the plaint, or instead of copy of the plaint could file concise
statements of the nature of the claim made or the relief claimed in the suit with the prior of the
Court, which the Court would permit by reason of the length of the plaint or the number of the
defendants or for any other sufficient reasons.
 Under the new rule 9, both these provisions have been omitted as found unnecessary just to cut
short the delays in the trail of the cases.

In Rule 11, for sub-clause (f) and (g) as inserted by Amendment Act of 1999 was substituted,
namely“(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9”.

The clause (f) enabled the court to reject the plaint where the plaintiff fails to comply with the
provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII.

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 was substituted meaning thereby that the documents may be produced
by the plaintiff which ought to be produced during the presentation of a plaint or to be entered
in the list or annexed to the plaint, with the leave of the Court, at the time of the hearing of the
suit.

The Amendment Act of 2002 omitted Rule 18.
G. ORDER VIII: WRITTEN STATEMENT, SET-OFF AND COUNTER CLAIM

Rule 1 [Written Statement], Rule 1A [Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which
relief is claimed or relied upon by him], Rule 9 [Subsequent pleadings] and Rule 10 [Procedure
when party fails to present written statement called for by Court] were amended.

In Rule 1, the defendant shall present the written statement within thirty days from the date of
service of summon. By 2002 Amendment Act, the defendant may file written statement
14
thereafter with the permission of the Court but not beyond ninety days where the Court for the
reasons to be recorded in writing has extended this period.

Thus, now a defendant can file a written statement within thirty days from the date of service of
summon but such time period can be extended upto ninety days by the Court for the reasons to
be recorded in writing.

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A was substituted by the Amendment Act, 2002. Rule 1A was added by
the Amendment Act of 1999 and further amended by Amendment Act, 2002.

It states that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule,
but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his
behalf at the hearing of the suit. Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents – (a) produced
for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness, or (b) handed over a witness merely to
refresh his memory.

Rule 9 was restored by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 in the same
form verbatim except for the addition of the words “of not more than thirty days” after the
words “and fix a time” and before the words “for presenting the same” appearing at the end of
the rule. The effect of the change is that subsequent pleadings shall be continued to be filed and
the Court shall fix the time for presenting the same, which shall be not more than thirty days.

Rule 10 which was omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999
was substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. It states that where
any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 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.
H. ORDER IX: APPEARANCE OF PARTIES AND CONSEQUENCES OF NON
APPEARANCE

Rule 2 [Dismissal of suit where summons not served in consequences of plaintiff’s failure to
pay costs] was substituted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.

It states that where on the day fixed it is found that the summons has not been served upon the
defendant in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the Court-fee or postal charges, if
15
any, chargeable for such service or failure to present copies of the plaint as required by Rule 9
of Order VII, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed.

The proviso to the rule states that no such order shall be made, if notwithstanding such failure,
the defendant attends in person or by agent when he is allowed to appear by agent on the day
fixed for him to appear and answer.
I. ORDER XIV: SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND DETERMINATION OF SUIT ON
ISSUES OF LAW OR ON ISSUES AGREED UPON

Rule 5 [Power to amend, and strike out issues] was substituted by Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2002.

Rule 5 was omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 which was
restored verbatim by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.

Rule 5 lays down provisions for amending the issues, framing additional issues, and striking
out issues in the course of the trial of a suit.

It states that the Court may at any time before the passing a decree amend the issues or frame
additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as
may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so
made or framed. It further states that the Court may also, at any time before passing a decree,
strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.

A court trying a civil suit has inherent power to take cognizance of questions going to the root
of the subject-matter in controversy between the parties at any stage of the trial. But before
doing so, the Court must frame and record issues on such questions.

The power of the Court is subject to Rule 3 of this Order. Thus the rule does not enable the reopening of issues already closed.
J. ORDER XVII: HEARING OF THE SUIT AND EXAMINATION OF WITNESS

Rule 2 [Statement and production of evidence] and Rule 4 [Recording of evidence] were
amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.

Sub-rule 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D of Rule 2 were inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 2002.
16

Sub-rule 3A of Rule 2 states that any party may address oral arguments in a case, and shall,
before he concludes the oral arguments, if any, submit if the Court so permits concisely and
under distinct headings written arguments in support of his case to the Court and such written
arguments shall form part of the record.

Sub-rule 3B of Rule 2 states that a copy of written arguments shall be simultaneously
furnished to the opposite party.

Sub-rule 3C of Rule 2 states that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of filing the
written arguments unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers it
necessary to grant such adjournment.

Sub-rule 3D of Rule 2 states that the Court shall fix such limits for the oral arguments by
either of the parties in a case, as it thinks fit.

Thus a time limit for oral arguments may be fixed by the Court and with the leave of the
Court, the parties may be required to submit written arguments before concluding the oral
arguments in the case. Ordinarily, no adjournments shall be granted for the purpose of
submitting written arguments, unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded in writing
considers it necessary to do so.

Rule 4 was substituted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.

In nutshell, Rule 4 states that the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be recorded on an
affidavit. The Commissioner can conduct and record cross-examination and re-examination of
a witness in the High Courts having original jurisdiction and in Courts subordinate to the High
Court. Such evidence shall be recorded either by the Court or by the Commissioner appointed
by it.

The Commissioner also possesses the power of recording the demeanor of a witness and any
objection made in regard to such matter shall be decided by the Court at the time of arguments
of the case.

A commissioner is under the obligation of submitting his report within six months from the
date of the issue of the Commission.

The court may fix the amount to be paid as remuneration for the services of the
Commissioner.
17
K. ORDER XX: JUDGEMENT AND DECREE

Rule 1 was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.

Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 was substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
2002.

It states that the Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in an open
Court, either at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable and when the judgment is to
be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due
notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.

The proviso to the sub-rule states that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every
endeavor shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within thirty days from the
date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do
on the ground of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Court shall
fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a
day beyond sixty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, and due
notice of the day to fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.

In other words, there is a definite time frame for the pronouncement of the judgments after a
case has been heard. The general rule is that a judgment is to be pronounced at once and
where it is not practicable to do so, the Court shall make an endeavor to pronounce judgment
within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded.

Where it is not practicable for the Court to pronounce judgment within thirty days because of
exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Court shall fix a day for the
pronouncement of judgment which should not be beyond sixty days from the date on which
the case was heard.
L. ORDER XXL: EXECUTION OF DECREES AND ORDERS

Rule 32 and Rule 92 were amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.

An Explanation was inserted under sub-rule (5) of Rule 32. It states that “For the removal of
doubts, the expression “the act required to be done” covers both prohibitory as well as
mandatory injunctions.
18

A controversy arose as to the meaning of the words “required to be done” in sub-rule (5) of
Rule 32. Do these words covered the situation where a prohibitory injunction has been
incorporated in the decree, or are they confined to cases where the decree is a mandatory one.
Different High courts have expressed different views on the subject. The controversy has been
resolved by the present explanation added which adopts a wider view.

In sub-rule (2) of Rule 92, the words “thirty days” was substituted by “sixty days”.
 After the first proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 92, the following proviso was inserted :
“Provided further that the deposit under this sub-rule may be made within sixty days in all
such cases where the period of thirty days, within which the deposit had to be made, has not
expired before the commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002”.
 The amendment in Rule 92 has been made on the recommendations of the Law Commission
made in the 139th Report (Page No. 08) to bring harmony between sub-rule (2) of Rule 92 and
Article 127 of The Indian Limitation Act, 1963. The period for making deposit under sub-rule
(2) of Rule 92 before the present amendment was thirty days, while under Article 127 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for making the application to set aside an execution
sale (which has to be accompanied by the deposit in Court of requisite amount) is sixty days.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002: CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY
 In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, the writ petition had been filed by
Advocate T.Raja seeking to challenge the Amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 by Amendment Act, 2002.
 A three-judge bench comprising the Chief Justice B.N.Kirpal, Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and
Justice Arijit Pasayat held that “We do not find that the amended provisions are in any
way ultra vires the Constitution’”.
 The judges attention was drawn to the various provisions of the amended Sections and Orders
of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.
19
 It was observed that “In court’s opinion amendments are constitutionally valid and if any
difficulties are still faced, these can be placed before the Committee. The Committee would
consider the said difficulties and make important suggestions in its report.
 The Bench said that keeping in mind the increasing number of litigation and the limited
number of judges, the amendments are imperative in resolving the litigation at an early date.
CONCLUSION

“The power of judicial discretion comes along with the action of arbitrariness”.

These judicial decisions result in the unnecessary delays. The Amendment Act of 2002 laid
down several time limits that bounds the plaintiff as well as the defendant at each stage of the
litigation. These limitations resulted in speeding up the litigation process.

The conceptualisation of the idea of evidence via affidavits as well as the introduction of the
court-appointed commissioner also resulted achieving the objectivity of this Amendment Act,
i.e., speedy and expeditious justice.

The lagging behind of the judicial system due to unnecessary adjournments now can be dealt
adequately with the limit imposed and by the provision of imposing costs including punitive
costs.

The failure on the part of courts for providing adequate and easily accessible to justice is one
of the principal causes of widespread dissatisfaction with the administration of justice.

The concept of “access to justice’ has undergone significant transformation. The Code of
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 aims to provide for speedy and effectual justice.
20
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Mulla
Bare Act of The Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Website
1. http://www.ili.ac.in/pdf/ag.pdf
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/civil-procedure-code-amendment-act-2002/
3. https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/THE%20CODE%20OF%20CIVIL%20PROCEDUR
E%20%28AMENDMENT%29%20ACT%2C%202002.pdf
21