Pleadings

Introduction
Pleadings are foundation of the litigation process, setting the stage for the trial by outlining the
respective claims and defenses of the parties involved. The primary purpose of pleadings is to
clearly define the issues in contention, enabling the court to adjudicate effectively.
 Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) specifically deals with pleadings,
establishing the rules for their structure, content, and amendment.
Definition: Rule 1 of Order VI
 The term “Pleading” shall mean plaint or written statement.
Basic Rules of Pleading: Rule 2 of Order VI
 Order VI Rule 2 of CPC lays down some general principles regarding pleadings which are as
follows:
o Pleadings should state facts and not law.
o The facts stated should be material facts i.e. Facta Probanda
o Pleadings should not state the evidence i.e. Facta Probantia
o The facts should be stated in a concise form.
Other Rules of Pleadings Contained in Order VI
 Forms of pleading: Rule 3
o Rule 3 states that forms in Appendix A to the first schedule of CPC should be used where they
are applicable.
o Where they are not applicable, forms of like character should be used.
 Particulars to be given where necessary: Rule 4
o Wherever misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence are pleaded
in the pleadings, particulars with dates and items should be stated.
 Condition Precedent: Rule 6
o The performance of a condition precedent need not be pleaded since it is implied in the
pleadings.
o Non- performance of a condition precedent must be specifically and expressly pleaded.
 Departure: Rule 7
o Generally, departure from pleading is not permissible except by way of amendment.
o No party can raise any ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with its
previous pleadings.
 Denial of Contract: Rule 8
o A bare denial of a contract by the opposite party will be construed only as a denial of fact of a
contract and the legality, validity of such contract.
 Effect of document to be stated: Rule 9
o Documents need not to be set out at length in the pleadings unless the words therein are
material.
 Malice, knowledge etc.: Rule 10
o Wherever it is material to allege malice, fraudulent intention, knowledge or other condition of
the mind of any person, it shall be sufficient to allege the same as a fact without setting out the
circumstances from which the same is to be inferred.
 Notice: Rule 11
o Whenever giving notice to any person is necessary, pleadings should only state regarding
giving of such notice without setting out the form or circumstances which it is to be inferred,
unless they are material.
Implied Contract or Relation: Rule 12
o In cases where a contract or relation is implied from a series of letters or conversations, the
pleading should specifically state such letters or conversations.
Presumption of Law: Rule 13
o Facts which the law presumes in favor of a party or as to which the burden of proof lies upon the
other side need not be pleaded.
Pleading to be signed: Rule 14
o Every pleading should be signed by the party and his pleader.
Verification of Pleadings: Rule 15
o Every pleading should be verified on an affidavit by the party or by one of the parties or by a
person acquainted with the facts of the case.
Striking out Pleadings: Rule 16 of Order VI
A Court at any stage of the proceedings may order striking of pleadings in the following
cases:
o Where such pleading is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
o Where such pleading tends to prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of the suit
o Where such pleading is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court
Amendment of Pleadings: Rule 17-18 of Order VI
 The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his
pleadings for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
 No application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced.
 If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the
time given by court, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such time.
 Where no time is specified in order, then the party must amend his pleading within fourteen
days.
Case Laws
 Sathi Vijay Kumar v. Tota Singh (2006): The Supreme Court held that, if the parties have
not offended the rules of pleadings by making averments or raising arguable issues, the
court would not order striking out pleadings.
 Kisandas Rupchand & Ors v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilvant & Ors (1909): The High Court
of Bombay held that, all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the condition:
- Not working injustice to the other side.
- Being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between
the parties.
 Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (1974): The Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the law
of limitation, the power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any
stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice.
Conclusion
Order VI of the CPC lays down a comprehensive framework for pleadings in civil litigation. By
mandating clarity, conciseness, and specificity, it aims to streamline the judicial process, ensure
fair play, and facilitate the effective administration of justice. Understanding and adhering to
these rules is crucial for litigants and legal practitioners to present their cases effectively and
avoid procedural difficulty.

REJECTION OF PLAINT

INTRODUCTION

Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for rejection of plaint, and the grounds
on which a plaint can be rejected. The main object of the provision is to reject the plaints that are
of a frivolous, vexatious and improper nature at he very beginning, thus saving judicial time and
resources. In the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, it was observed that the main motive
of order 7 rule 11 is to ascertain that litigation that has barely any meaning or is bound to prove
abortive is not permitted to occupy the time of the courts and the excessive minds of the
defendants. Such remedies are necessary for putting an end to sham litigations to save judicial
time as held in Dahiben v. arvindbhai kalyani bhanusali,

If the suit is not falling under any of those categories, the plaint cannot be rejected. (V. Bragan
Nayagi Vs. R.R. Jeyaprakasam.

Order 7 rule 11 act as the ground rules for rejecting a plaint and allows it to reject a suit at the
very beginning without proceeding tto record evidence or conduct a trial. In akbar ali v. umar
khan, it was held that, the grounds in order 7 rule 11 is not exhaustive in nature. Further, the
court has an inherent power to reject a plaint in the case where it is of frivolous or vexatious
nature.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that while considering an application under Order 7
Rule 11, the court should not dissect the plaint into isolated parts. Instead, the plaint must be read
as a whole to determine whether any of the grounds for rejection are made out. Fragmentary
reading of the plaint is not permissible.
GROUNDS

a) There is no cause of action in the plaint

Cause of action is the facts alleged in a complaint upon which is based the plaintiffs right to a
legal remedy in a court of law. A plaint must clearly articulate the facts that constitiuted the
cause of actionthat gives rise ot the plaintiff irgth to sue and defendents corresponding liability

If the plaint, even if tis taken to be true on the facrs,does not establish a legal right that has been
violated or a wrong that has been committed by the defendat, it lacks a caus eof action and is
laible to be rejected
For instance: if someone files a suit claiming damages for a perceived insult without any legal
basis for such a claim, the plaint could be rejected. The reading of the plaint must
be ,meaningful. In Abdullah bin ali v. golappa, the court held that clever drafting and
repeating words may create an illusory cause of action, which the court must recognize
and reject such plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a)

b) The plaint is undervalued

Every suit must have a proper valuation for the purpose of determining the court’s jurisdiction
and the applicable court fees. If the court finds that the relief claimed has been undervalued, it
will provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to correct the valuation within a specified timeframe.
Failure to comply with this direction can lead to the rejection of the plaint.

c) Plaint is not sufficiently stamped. (Rule 11(c))

Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently
stamped: Payment of the prescribed court fees is a prerequisite for maintaining a suit. If the
plaint is presented on insufficiently stamped paper, the court will grant time to the plaintiff to
make up the deficiency. If the plaintiff fails to do so within the given time, the plaint can be
rejected.

d) Plaint is barred by law. (Rule 11(d))

Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: This ground
covers situations where the suit is clearly barred by any law in force. This could include
limitations laws (where the suit is filed after the prescribed time period), res judicata (where the
matter has already been decided by a competent court), or any other specific statutory bar.

- For example, if a suit for recovery of money is filed after the limitation period has
expired, and this fact is evident from the plaint itself, it can be rejected under this clause.
- For example, in a suit against Government, if the suit is instituted without Notice
u/s 80 CPC which is mandatory, then the plaint shall be rejected. Although, if a
waiver of such notice is pleaded, the court cannot reject the plaint without giving
an opportunity to the plaintiff to establish the fact.
- Another example is if plaint shows it is barred by limitation, it shall be rejected.
However, if the matter of limitation is connected with other issues, it shall be
decided along with other issues (Arjan Singh vs. Union of India)

e) Plaint is not filed in duplicate (Rule 11(e))

Order 7 Rule 1 mandates that the plaint shall be accompanied by as many duplicate copies as
there are defendants in the suit. Failure to comply with this procedural requirement can lead to
the rejection of the plaint.

f) Plaintiff does not comply with Order VII Rule 9. (Rule 11(f))
Rule 9 of Order 7 requires the plaintiff to present along with the plaint a list of documents on
which they rely for their suit. Failure to submit this list can be a ground for rejection under Rule
11(f).
AFTER REJECTION

As per Rule 12, Judge must record an order to that effect with reasons for rejection of the
plaint. Therefore, such order must not be passed in a mechanical and pedantic manner.
Such an order must be unambiguous and clear regarding the grounds taken. Moreover, it
must be a reasoned order.

The powers conferred by Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised at any stage before the
conclusion of the trial. This can be exercised suo motu by the Court if the Court finds any
ground to reject the plaint to save precious judicial time, or it may reject upon an
application by the defendant parties regarding the same. However, the provisions of
rejection of plaint must be applied strictly, and therefore, the ingredients for each ground
must be strictly adhered to.

An order under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be challenged by means of filing an appeal
under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 as the first appeal from order (FAFO).

RETURN OF PLAINT

INTRODUCTION

Order 7 rule 10 deals with the return of plaint. The court, if it found that it does not have
jurisdiction in the suit, can return by an order that the plaint to be presented in the proper court.
The defect of jurisdiction can be of territorial, Pecuniary or Subject matter.
Rule 10 deals with the return of plaint. It states that –

(1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be
returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.

Explanation. — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or
revision may direct after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint
under this sub-rule.

(2) Procedure on returning plaint —On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the
- date of its presentation and
- date of its return,
- the name of the party presenting it, and
- a brief statement of the reasons for returning it

GROUNDS FOR RETURN OF PLAINT:-

The court shall return a plaint on the following grounds:-

Court has no jurisdiction:- The term jurisdiction refers to the legal authority, to do justice in
accordance with the means provided by law and subject to the limitation imposed by law. The
court should return the plaint when it has no jurisdiction to try it.
Objection to jurisdiction:- If the party to the suit has any objection as to the jurisdiction of the
court, the court may return the plaint.

RULE 10A-
1) if the court, after appearance of the defendant, decides to return the plaint due to lack of
jurisdiction, It must inform the plaintiff of this decision before returning the plaint.
- This give the plaintiff a chance to request a fixed date in the new court so that the process
is not repeated from scratch.
2) Plaintiff, after receiving intimation, may apply to the court specifying the court in
which he proposed to present the plaint after its return, and
Praying that the court may fix a date of appearance of the parties in the said court, and
also requesting the notice of the fixed date be given to both plaintiff and defendant.
3) Where an application is made, the Court shall fix a date for appearance in the proposed
court, and Give notice of that date to both parties.
4) If the notice of appearance date is served to the defendant under Rule 10-A(3), there is
No need to serve a fresh summons in the new court, unless the new court specifically
directs otherwise, giving recorded reasons.

RULE 10B

This rule was added to empower appellate courts (i.e., courts hearing appeals against orders
returning plaints under Order VII Rule 10) to:

- Transfer the suit directly to the appropriate court, instead of returning the plaint and
forcing the plaintiff to re-file.
- Avoid re-summoning the defendant when they have already appeared.

Rule 10B states that

1. Transfer Instead of Return i.e. When an appeal is filed against an order returning a
plaint, the appellate court may order:
- Instead of returning the plaint, the entire suit be transferred to the correct court where
it could have been filed initially.
2. No Fresh Summons Needed i.e. If the defendant had already appeared in the original
court, fresh service of summons is not required in the transferee court.

Amar Chand v. Union of India,

When a plaint is returned and filed in the proper court, the suit does not continue from the
previous court. Instead, it is a new suit, and limitation is counted afresh from the date of
re-presentation, subject to Section 14 of the Limitation Act (exclusion of time spent in good
faith in a wrong forum).
APPEALABLE ORDER

The return of a plaint under Order VII Rule 10 is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC –
“An appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 10 of Order 7 returning a plaint to be presented to
the proper court.”

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LIMITATION ACT

INTRODUCTION

Justice delayed is Justice denied “as the adage goes. The Act serves as the cornerstone of this
principle by establishing stipulated and reasonable timeframe for specific suits to be
institutionalized accordingly within which the legal disputes & recourse can be sought. Imagine a
scenario where someone injures you today, but you wait 20 years to file a lawsuit. Memories
fade, witnesses disappears & especially the evidence crumbles. The pursuit of justice becomes an
uphill battle, if not impossible. This is precisely the flaw that the Limitation Act seeks to avoid.

The Law of Limitation is a Procedural Law. It is Lex Fori i.e. the law of the court in which a
proceeding is brought) and is founded on Public Policy. The word limitation in its literal terms
means a restriction or the rule or circumstances which are limited.

The Limitation Act came into force on 1st January 1964. It extends to the whole of India. The
structure of the act:

- It contains a total of 5 parts.

- There are in total 32 sections in the act.
- It contains 137 Articles in the act which provide for periods of limitation.
- Articles 137 in total contains three divisions namely:
- First Division - Suits (Article 1-113)
- Second Division - Appeals (Articles 114-117)
- Third Division - Applications (Articles 118-137).

LAW OF LIMITATION

The law of limitation is prescribed as the time limit given for different suits to the aggrieved
person within which they can approach the court for redress or justice. The Law of Limitation
ensures that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics and avail the remedy promptly. The main
objective of the act is to prevent cases from dragging on for too long and Promote speedy
disposal of the cases.
Period of limitiation: According to Section 2 (j) of the Limitation Act, 1963, ‘period of
limitation’ means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the
Schedule, and ‘prescribed period’ means the period of limitation computed in accordance with
the provisions of this Act. If a suit is filed after the expiry of the time prescribed it will be barred
by the limitation.
It means that a suit brought before the court after the expiry of the time within which a legal
proceeding should have been initiated will be restricted. The time from which the limitation
begins depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.
It usually starts from the date once the
- summons or notice is served, or
- the date on that the decree or judgment is passed, or
- the date on that the event that forms the idea of the suit takes place
- The Supreme Court in Trustee’s Port Bombay v. The Premier Automobile (1971) held
that the starting point of limitation is the accrual of the cause of action

FEATURES:
1. It is based on two key maxism:

- Interest Republicae ut sit finis litium-In the interest of society as a whole, there should
be an end to litigation.
- Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt - Law will assist those who are vigilant
with their rights and not those who sleep there upon. In simpler words, the law will not
help those who neglect them

2. The Limitation Act is exhaustive with respect to all matters expressly dealt with in it. It
cannot be extended by analogy. Ordinarily, the act applies only to civil cases except in the
matter expressly and specifically provided for that purpose.

3. The Limitation Act is majorly an adjective law, but it provides for both the substantial and
procedural features of any statute.
- In the case of A.S. Krishnappa Chettair v. Nahiappa Chettiar (1964), it was held by
Supreme Court of India that the ‘Limitation Act’ is basically a piece of adjective or
procedural law and not substantive law

4. It has both prospective and retrospective effects. Section 31 provides for retrospective and
prospective effects
- In thirumalai chemicals ltd vs. uoi, observed that statutes of limitation are retrospective
so far as they apply to all legal proceedings brought after their operations for enforcing
causes of action accured earlier
- In B.K. Education services private limited vs. parag gupta and associates , the supreme
court held that the la wof limitation is procedural in nature and has retrospective effect
5. The Limitation act does not apply to the writs because it is not a suit, not an application or
a petition.
- In the case of Rajmata V.R. Scindia v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1984), it was held by
the Supreme Court that the period of limitation prescribed by ‘Limitation Act’ does not
strictly apply to application under Article 226 & 32 of the Constitution of India.

GENERAL RULES:
1. Limitation is strictly applied

Section 3 lays down the general rule that if any suit, appeal or application is brought before the
court after the expiry of the prescribed time then the court shall dismiss such suit, appeal or
application as time barred.

Section 4: When a court is closed on a certain day and the period of limitation expires on that
day, then any suit, appeal or application shall be taken up to the court on the day on which it
reopens.

‘Condonation of delay’, It means that extension of time given in certain cases provided there is
sufficient cause for such delay.

Section 5 of the act talks about the extension of the prescribed period in certain cases. It
provides that if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause to not
prefer the appeal or application within that period, such appeal or application can be admitted
after the prescribed time.

‘Sufficient cause’ means there should be adequate reasons or reasonable grounds for the
court to believe the applicant was prevented from proceeding with the application in a Court of
law.

2. The law of limitation only bars the judicial remedy and does not extinguish the
right.

In other words, the statute of limitation prescribes only the period within which legal
proceedings must be initiated.

 In the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors v. Surendra Prasad Sinha (1992) the
Supreme Court held that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the
parties. Section 3 only bars the remedy but does not destroy the right which the remedy
relates to.
 In Rullia ram hakim rai v. s. fateh singh s. sham sher singh, it was held that the bar of
limitation does not prevent a defense. It tends to bar the action for recovery and makes it
time barred but it does not stop a debt from paying off their time barred debts
 Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company v. the State of Bombay (1957): The
Supreme Court held that the limitation bars the remedy and does not extinguish the right.
Thus, the lapse of time does not extinguish the person’s right.
Section 27 is an exception to this general rule that that the law of limitation only bars the
remedy but does not bar the right itself.
It talks about adverse possession. Adverse possession means someone who has another’s land
for a long time can claim a legal title over it.

Q: Write a short note on Doctrine of sufficient cause

Introduction
(add stuff)
Section 5 of the act allows the extension of the prescribed period in certain cases. It provides
that if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause to not prefer
the appeal or application within that period, such appeal or application can be admitted after the
prescribed time.

This is known as doctrine of “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay which is embodied in
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The term sufficient cause has not been defined in the
Limitation Act. It depends on the circumstances of each case. However, it must be a cause which
is beyond the control of the party. ‘Sufficient cause’ can be broadly understood as there should
be adequate reasons or reasonable grounds for the court to believe the applicant was
prevented from proceeding with the application in a Court of law. ‘Condonation of delay’, It
means that extension of time given in certain cases provided there is sufficient cause for such
delay.

NON APPLICABILITY

Section 5 provides that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the
provisions of Order XXI (21) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the
prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause
for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

The Section is not applicable to applications made under any of the provisions of Order 21 of
CPC and also to suits. The Court has no power to admit a time barred suit even if there is a
sufficient cause for the delay. It applies only to appeals or applications as specified therein.
The reason for nonapplicability of the Section to suits is that, the period of limitation allowed in
most of the suits extends from 3 to 12 years whereas in appeals and application it does not
exceed 6 months.

The party applying for condonation of delay should satisfy the Court for not making an appeal or
application within the prescribed period for sufficient cause..

In Ramlal v. Rewa Coal Fields Ltd., the Supreme Court held that once the period of limitation
expires then the appellant has to explain the delay made thereafter for day by day and if he is
unable to explain the delay even for a single day, it would be deemed that the party did not have
sufficient cause for delay. It is the Court’s discretion to extend or not to extend the period of
limitation even after the sufficient cause has been shown and other conditions are also specified.
However, the Court should exercise its discretion judicially and not arbitrarily.

The Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another v. Mst.
Katiji & Ors 1987, has laid down some guiding principles which the court must follow while
dealing with the issue of Condonation of delay and they are as follows:

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the
highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties

3. Every day's delay must be explained, and it does not mean that a pedantic approach should
be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause
of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have
vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable

negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to
delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize
injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is
expected to do so.

WHAT AMOUNT TO SUFFIECIENT CAUSE

Following events inter alia amounts to sufficient cause:

 1. Wrong practice of High Court which misled the appellant or his counsel in not filing the
appeal should be regarded as sufficient cause under Section 5;
2. In certain cases, mistake of counsel may be taken into consideration in condonation of
delay. But such mistake must be bona fide;
3. Wrong advice given by advocate can give rise to sufficient cause in certain cases;
4. Mistake of law in establishing or exercising the right given by law may be considered as
sufficient cause. However, ignorance of law is not excuse, nor the negligence of the party
or the legal adviser constitutes a sufficient cause;
5. Imprisonment of the party or serious illness of the party may be considered for
condonation of delay;
6. Time taken for obtaining certified copies of the decree of the judgment necessary to
accompany the appeal or application was considered for condoning the delay.
7. Ailment of father during which period the defendant was looking after him has been held
to be a sufficient and genuine cause (Mahendra Yadav v. Ratna Devi & others).

The quasi judicial tribunals, labour courts or executive authorities have no power to extend the
period under this Section. The test of “sufficient cause” is purely an individualistic test. It is not
an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike.

The statute of limitation has left the concept of sufficient cause‟ delightfully undefined thereby
leaving to the court a well intended discretion to decide the individual cases whether
circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. There are no categories of sufficient cause. The
categories of sufficient cause are never exhausted. Each case spells out a unique experience to be
dealt with by the Court as such.

MEDICAL CONDIITON AS SUFFIENT CAUSE?

For medical conditions specifically, courts generally consider them as sufficient cause for delay
if properly evidenced. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Collector (LA) v. Katiji ,
held that delay should be condoned where the reason presented reveals that the party had not
been negligent or inactively indifferent. The relevant extracts are as follows (Page 108, ¶3):

“3…5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable

negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay.
In fact he runs a serious risk.”

Several factors are considered by courts when evaluating claims of sufficient cause:
 a) First, the length of delay is relevant but not decisive. In State of W.B. v. Administrator,
Howrah Municipality , the Supreme Court held that the merits of the case should not be
sacrificed on the altar of technical considerations of limitation.
b) Second, medical conditions must be substantiated with proper medical documentation. The
Supreme Court in its decision reported in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v.
Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. , required that claims of illness be supported by
appropriate medical certificates and evidence.
c) Third, courts assess whether the litigant acted with reasonable diligence once the
impediment was removed. The Supreme Court in its decision reported in Esha
Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy , laid down guidelines for condonation of
delay, emphasizing that once the cause for delay ceases to exist, the party must act with
reasonable promptness. The relevant extracts are as follows:

“32. “11…Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant
to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is
that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.” We have
painfully restated the same.”

CLASSIFICATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION

Depending upon the duration, period of limitation for different purposes may be classified as
follows:

Period of 30 years: The maximum period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act is 30
years and it is provided only for three kinds of suits:

- Suits by mortgagors for the redemption or recovery of possession of immovable property

mortgaged;
- Suits by mortgagee for foreclosure;
- Suits by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government including the
State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Period of 12 years: A period of 12 years is prescribed as a limitation period for various kinds of
suits relating to immovable property, trusts and endowments.

Period of 3 years: A period of three years has been prescribed for suits relating to accounts,
contracts, declaratory suits, suits relating to decrees and instruments and suits relating to
movable property.

Period varying between 1 to 3 years: The period form 1 to 3 years has been prescribed for suits
relating to torts and other miscellaneous matters and suits for which no period of limitation is
provided in the schedule to the Act.
 Period in days varying between 90 to 10 days: The minimum period of limitation of 10 days is
prescribed for application for leave to appear and defend a suit under summary procedure from
the date of service of the summons.

- For appeals against a sentence of death passed by a court of session or a High Court in
the exercise of its original jurisdiction the limitation period is 30 days. For appeal against
any sentence other than a sentence of death or any other not being an order of acquittal,
the period of 60 days for the appeal to High Court and 30 days for appeal to any other
Court is prescribed. Period of leave to appeal as a pauper from the date of the decree is 60
days when application for leave to appeal is made to the High Court and 30 days to any
other Court.

LEGAL DISABILITY [S.6 (main) and supported by S.7, 8& 9

 The ‘Law of Limitation’ provides an aggrieved party with the time limit for different suits
within which the party can approach the court for relief.

 The suit is dismissed by the competent court where the time limit provided by the limitation
act expires. A situation may exist where, due to his physical or mental condition, the person is
not able to file a suit or make an application.

 In such cases, the law may not be the same and additional rights and benefits may be accorded to
individuals with disabilities.

 The concept of legal disability is provided under Section 6 of the Limitation Act,1963 which
further extends to Sections 7, 8 and 9.

Section 6 of the Limitation Act,1963

Legal disability —(1) Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for
the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a
minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same
period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time
specified there for in the third column of the Schedule.

(2) Where such person is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned,
affected by two such disabilities, or where, before his disability has ceased, he is affected by
another disability, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same
period after both disabilities have ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time
so specified.

(3) Where the disability continues up to the death of that person, his legal
representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the
death, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified.

(4) Where the legal representative referred to in sub-section (3) is, at the date of the death of the
person whom he represents, affected by any such disability, the rules contained sub-sections (1)
and (2) shall apply.

(5) Where a person under disability dies after the disability ceases but within the period allowed
to him under this section, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the
application within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been available to
that person had he not died.

Explanation —For the purposes of this section, ‘minor’ includes a child in the womb.

The section deals with following types of disabilities:

- Minority

- Insanity

- Idiocy

Minority

- Minor is a person who has not attained the age of 18 years according to Indian
Majority Act, 1875.
- The calculation of the age has to be done according to Section 3(2) of the Majority Act,
1875 - In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be
included as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the
beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.

Insanity

- It means unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents

someone from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular
relationship, status, or transaction or that releases someone from criminal or civil
responsibility.
 - In the case of [Link] v. State of Maharashtra (2009), the concept of insanity has
been dealt with in detail by the Supreme Court and the court opined that only legal
insanity is recognized by law and not the medical insanity.
- Another case on the point of insanity is that of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2008) in which the Supreme Court categorized insanity into further four
categories:
1. When one is an idiot;
2. When one is made non compos by illness
3. When one is a lunatic or a mad man and
4. When one is drunk.

Idiocy

A person who acts in an extremely foolish way is said to be an idiot. Idiocy is not an acquired
form of mental instability, rather a person is an idiot since his/her birth.

Computation of Limitation Period in case of Legal Disability

Persons with insanity, minority and idiocy as disabilities are exempted under Section
6 to file a suit or an application for the execution of the order in the time prescribed by the
law. They are allowed to file a suit or an application when their disability has ceased and
counting the period starts from the day their disability comes to an end.

Who is entitled to the benefit of Section 6

It is only a person “entitled to the suit” who can claim benefit of legal disability. Where the
person dies with such disability the ‘Legal Representative’ of such person may sue and all the
rules provided by Section 6 would apply to such legal representative as well.

Accrual of cause of action

 The provision provides that the plaintiff must be suffering from the disability at the time when
the cause of action accrues.

 In the case of Udhavji Anandji Ladha and Ors. v. Bapudas Ramdas Darbar (1949) Bombay
High Court held that Section 6 does not cover in any way any “intervening” kind of legal
disability. When a legal disability is in existence, only then can Section 6 be successfully
applied.

Section 7 of the Limitation Act,1963

Disability of one of several persons.—Where one of several persons jointly entitled

to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is under any such
 disability, and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run
against them all; but, where no such discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of
them until one of them becomes capable of giving such discharge without the concurrence of the
others or until the disability has ceased.

Explanation I —This section applies to a discharge from every kind of liability, including a
liability in respect of any immovable property.

Explanation II —For the purposes of this section, the Manager of a Hindu undivided family
governed by the Mitakshara law shall be deemed to be capable of giving a discharge without the
concurrence of the other members of the family only if he is in management of the joint family
property.

 Section 7 had to be taken as an exception to the general principle set out in Section 6 and
provides that if there were several persons who were jointly entitled to file suits and if one of
them were disabled, the time would not run against either of them until the disability ceased to
exist. But if one of the persons entitled to institute a suit was competent to grant discharge
without concurrence from others, then time would begin to run against both of them.

Section 8 of the Limitation Act,1963:

Special exceptions — Nothing in Section 6 or in Section 7 applies to suits to enforce rights of

pre-emption, or shall be deemed to extend, for more than three years from the cessation of
the disability or the death of the person affected thereby, the period of limitation for any suit or
application.

 This provision provides that if the limitation period is extended under Section 6 or 7 then in no
case it should be extended for more than 3 years.

 Also, the extension under Section 6 or 7 will not be applicable to suits for pre-emption.

Section 9 of the Limitation Act,1963:

Continuous running of time —Where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or
inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it: Provided that, where letters of
administration to the estate of a creditor have been granted to his debtor, the running of the
period of limitation for a suit to recover the debt shall be suspended while the administration
continues.

Explaination: to understand
According to Section 9 of the Act where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or
inability to institute a suit or make an application can stop it provided that where letters of
administration to the estate of a creditor have been granted to his debtor, the running of the
period of limitation for a suit to recover debt shall be suspended while the administration
continues.
• The rule of this Section is based on the English dictum. “Time when once it has
commenced to run in any case will not cease to be so by reason of any subsequent
event”. Thus, when any of the statutes of limitation is begun to run, no subsequent
disability or inability will stop this running.
• The applicability of this Section is limited to suits and applications only and does
not apply to appeals unless the case fell within any of the exceptions provided in
the Act itself.
• Thus, time runs when the cause of action accrues.

Mention in brief the provisions relating to computation of period of limitation under the
Limitation Act, 1963

Exclusion of certain days or exclusion of time in legal proceedings

 The day which is to be excluded in computing period of limitation is the day from which
the period of limitation is to be reckoned. In case of any suit, appeal or application, the
period of limitation is to be computed exclusive of the day on which the time begins to
run [Section 12(1)].

 The day on which the judgement complained of was pronounced and the time requisite
for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be
revised or reviewed shall be excluded [Section 12(2)].

 The time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgement shall also be excluded [Section
12(3)].
  The time required for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded [Section 12(4)].

Exclusion of time during which leave to sue or appeal as a pauper is applied for (Section 13).

Exclusion of time bona fide taken in a court without jurisdiction. (Section 14)

The relief to a person is given by Section 14 of the Act when the period of limitation is over,
because another civil proceedings relating to the matter in issue had been initiated in a court
which is unable to entertain it, by lack of jurisdiction or by any other like cause.

The following conditions must co-exist for the applicability of this Section:
 that the plaintiff or the applicant was prosecuting another civil proceedings against the
defendant with due diligence;
 that the previous suit or application related to the same matter in issue;
 that the plaintiff or the applicant prosecuted in good-faith in that court; and
 that the court was unable to entertain a suit or application on account of defect of
jurisdiction or other like cause.

Exclusion of time in certain other cases

 When a suit or application for the execution of a decree has been stayed by an injunction
or order, the time of the continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it was
issued or made and the day on which it was withdrawn shall be excluded. [Section 15(1)]

 The time required to obtain the sanction or consent of the Govt. required, or a notice
period shall also be excluded in case of suits. [Section 15(2)]
 In a suit or an application for execution of a decree by any receiver or interim receiver or
any liquidator, the period beginning with the date of institution of such proceeding and
ending with the expiry of 3 months from the date of their appointment shall be excluded.
[Section 15(3)]

 The time during which the defendant has been absent from India and from the territories
outside India administered by the Central Government, shall also be excluded. [Section
15(5)]

 In case of death of a person before the right to institute a suit accrues, the period of
limitation shall be computed from the time when there is a legal representative of the
deceased capable of instituting such suit or making such application. The same rule
applies in case if defendant dies. [Sections 16(1) and (2)]

 Where the suit or application is based upon the fraud or mistake of the defendant or
respondent or his agent or in other cases as mentioned in Section 17, the period of
limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered fraud or
mistake subject to certain exceptions. (Section 17)
acknowledgement

Section 18 of the Limitation Act deal with the effect of acknowledgement of liability in respect
of property or right on the period of limitation. The following requirements shouldbe present for
a valid acknowledgement as per Section 18:
2. There must be an admission or acknowledgement;
3. Such acknowledgement must be in respect of any property or right;
4. It must be made before the expiry of period of limitation; and
5. It must be in writing and signed by the party against whom such property or right
is claimed.
If all the above requirements are satisfied, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed
from the time when the acknowledgement was signed.

When does the payment of interest or part-payment of principal amount by the debtor
extend the period of limitation? Discuss

As per Section 19 of the Act where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy
is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt
or legacy or by his agent duly authorized in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be
computed from the time when the payment was made.

Thus, according to this section a fresh period of limitation becomes available to the
creditor from the date of part payment when part-payment of debt is made by the debtor
before the expiration of the period of limitation.

Q: Discuss the rules in relation to the acquisition of ownership by possession. Acquisition of

ownership by possession

Section 25 applies to acquisition of easements. It provides that the right to access and use of light
or air, way, watercourse, use of water, or any other easement which
have been peaceably enjoyed without interruption and for twenty years (thirty years if
property belongs to Government) shall be absolute and indefeasible.

Such period of twenty years shall be a period ending within two years next before the
institution of the suit.

Q: Does the Limitation Act apply to a proceeding under Articles 232 and 226 of the
Constitution?

Limitation and Writs under the Constitution

The Limitation Act does not in terms apply to a proceeding under Article 32 or Article 226
of the Constitution. But the Courts act on the analogy of the statute of limitation and refuse
relief if the delay is more than the statutory period of limitation (State of M.P. v. Bhai Lal
Bhai). Where the remedy in a writ petition corresponds to a remedy in an ordinary suit and
latter remedy is subject to bar of a statute of limitation, the Court in its writ jurisdiction
adopts in the statute its own rule of procedure and in absence of special circumstances
imposes the same limitation in the writ jurisdiction. If the right to property is extinguished
by prescription under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there is no subsisting right to
be enforced under Article 32 of the Constitution. In other case where the remedy only, not
the right, is extinguished by limitation the Court will refuse to entertain stale claims on the
ground of public policy.

ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP BY POSSESSION UNDER THE LIMITATION ACT

Introduction

Possession is one of the most important concepts in the entire range of Legal History as it is
the Prima facie incidence of ownership. According to Salmond, Possession is the most
fundamental interaction between man and things. However, Henry Maine defined it
as “interaction with an object that includes the exclusion of other people from enjoying it.”

Acquisition of Ownership by Possession Under Limitation Act

- Acquisition of Ownership by Possession is provided under the Limitation Act, 1963

(hereinafter Act) by Sections 25, 26 and 27.
- The concept of adverse possession (Possession by someone who has had another’s land
for a long time and can claim a legal title over it) is important to be discussed
here, adverse possession stems from the idea that land must not be left in abeyance,
instead, be put to judicious use.
 - Essentially, adverse possession refers to the hostile possession of property, which must
be “continuous, uninterrupted, and peaceful.”

The abovementioned provisions refer to:

 Section 25 - Acquisition of easements by prescription.

 Section 26 - Exclusion in favour of reversioner of serivent tenement.
 Section 27 - Extinguishment of right to property.

Section 25

Section 25 - Acquisition of easements by prescription. —

(1) Where the access and use of light or air to and for any building have been peaceably enjoyed
therewith as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where
any way or watercourse or the use of any water or any other easement (whether affirmative or
negative) has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto as an
easement and as of right without interruption and for twenty years, the right to such access and
use of light or air, way, watercourse, use of water, or other easement shall be absolute and
indefeasible.

(2) Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a period ending within two years
next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested

(3) Where the property over which a right is claimed under sub-section (1) belongs to the
Government that sub-section shall be read as if for the words “twenty years” the words “thirty
years” were substituted.

Explanation.—Nothing is an interruption within the meaning of this section, unless where there
is an actual discontinuance of the possession or enjoyment by reason of an obstruction by the act
of some person other than the claimant, and unless such obstruction is submitted to or acquiesced
in for one year after the claimant has notice thereof and of the person making or authorizing the
same to be made.

 It provides for acquisition of easement by prescription.

 Easement by prescription is a type of adverse possession where one acquires an
easement (Easement - Right to use another person’s property in some way).
 Easement by prescription occurs where someone uses another's property for a certain
amount of time without permission in a way in which the owner should be aware of.
 States set the time limit required for one to achieve a prescriptive easement which can
range from a few years to over twenty years.
 This section is remedial in nature, but it does not exclude or prevent the acquisition of
easement rights in other modes. For acquiring easement under this provision, 20 years of
uninterrupted and continuous use is necessary.

The following conditions must be satisfied for the acquisition of right to easement:
  Peaceful Possession: The word peaceably means that the plaintiff who claims to be the
owner, has neither been obliged to resort to physical force himself at any time to exercise
his right within twenty years nor he has been prevented by the use of physical force by
the defendant in his enjoyment of such right.
 Openly: The word openly means that the enjoyment has been from the very beginning
which was visible or manifest and not furtive or secret.
 As of Right: The term as of right signifies enjoyment by a person in the assertion of a
right. In order to fall under this category enjoyment should be as of right i.e., the person
claiming it must have exercised it without leave or license from anyone.
 Without Interruption: Enjoyment for twenty years must be without interruption, that is,
without any obstruction.

Case Laws

 In Rachhaya Pandey and Ors v. Sheodhari Pandey and Ors (1963), it has been held that
the right to drain off rainwater according to the position of the land in a natural way does not
attract Section 25.
 In Manindra Nath Bose v. Balaram Chandra Patni and Ors, (1973) Calcutta High
Court held that the customary right of way for all the villagers is not a right which can be
acquired by prescription under Section 25

SECTION 26

Section 26 - Exclusion in favour of reversioner of serivent tenement — Where any land or

water upon, over or from, which any easement has been enjoyed or derived has been held under
or by virtue of any interest for life or in terms of years exceeding three years from the granting
thereof, the time of the enjoyment of such easement during the continuance of such interest or
term shall be excluded in the computation of the period twenty years in case the claim is, within
three years next after the determination of such interest or term, resisted by the person entitled on
such determination to the said land or water.

 Where any easement has been enjoyed or derived by virtue of life interest or in terms exceeding
3 years, the time of enjoyment of such easement during the continuation of such interest, such
time period is to be excluded in computation of 20 years under Section 25

SECTION 27

Section 27 - Extinguishment of right to property — At the determination of the period hereby

limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such
property shall be extinguished.

The following points are to be understood here:

 General Rule is that the law of limitation only bars the remedy but does not bar the
right itself. Section 27 is an exception to this rule as it talks about adverse possession.
  It is based upon the principle - If the rightful owner sleeps over his rights, then the
rights of the owner will be extinguished, and the possessor of the property will have a
good title over it.
 The provision is not limited to physical possession but also includes de
jure possession
 Example of De Jure Possession: Where a man has ceased to live in a house but without
intending and to abandon it and remains the owner of the house
 As per the wordings of this Section, it applies and is limited only to suits for possession
of the property.

Adverse Possession

 Section 3 of the Limitation Act says that Court will not take cognizance of any suit,
which is barred by limitation even if issue of limitation is not taken as a defence. The
law of limitation bars remedy but not the right.
 Section 27 of the Act is an exception to the general principle of the law of limitation.
 It conveys that if a person fails to file a suit for recovery of possession, within a
period of limitation, his right to recover the possession of that property also
extinguishes. If such a situation occurs, the true owner extinguishes his ownership over
the property.

Criticism

In the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Ors (2008) ,
the Supreme Court criticized the doctrine of Adverse Possession by claiming it to be
illogical and irrational because it punishes the actual owner for not taking any
action within the limitation period and directed the Union of India to reconsider the
doctrine.

Legal Protection to Claim Adverse Possession

 Section 27 of the Act affirms the limitation period to file a suit on the part of the
property owner to be 12 years under Article 65 of the Schedule Periods of Limitation
First Division – Suits.
 In Gurdwara Sahib Vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, (2014)
Supreme Court held that a suit needs to be filed by a person within 12 years from the
date of dispossession on the basis of title under Article 65 of The Schedule's First
Division of the Act. The time limit commences from the date when the possession of
the immovable property becomes averse to the Plaintiff
 After the other party has possessed the property for more than 12 years
continuously, no action shall lie against them.

Essentials to Prove Adverse Possession

  The Date of Possession: The date on which adverse possession of the property began
must be established. This date is critical as it determines the 12-year statutory period
required for adverse possession.
 Knowledge of Owner: It is necessary to demonstrate that the true owner had knowledge
of the possession and the date when they became aware of it. Additionally, it is essential
to establish that immediate neighbors were aware of the possession and the date when
they became aware of it.
 Peaceful Possession: The possession taken by the trespasser of the property must be
peaceful. Any possession which is taken by a person after threatening the real owner of
the property does not come under adverse possession.
 Lack of Legal Action by the Owner: It must be proven that the true owner did not take
any action against the possession despite having knowledge of it. It must be proven that
the owner was aware of the possession.
 Continuous Possession: It must be established that the possession of the property was
continuous without any interruptions by the owner or any other person

Exceptions

Such rule of adverse possession does not apply to following persons:

 If the owner is a minor.

 If the owner is mentally unwell.
 If the owner serves in the armed forces.

Adverse Possession in Government Properties

For adverse possession of any Government property the period to claim ownership from the
Government or any public organization has been fixed at 30 years by Section 25 of the Act. In
other words, it is only after 30 years of uninterrupted possession of the person that no action for
claims could be filed if the property is owned by the Government.

Conclusion

The law of prescription aids the vigilant person in possession of the property to claim ownership
even if this doctrine seems harsh upon the dormant owner the law needs to be abided by till the
legislation is amended

Extras

Limitation period for adverse possession commences when possession becomes adverse, not
upon plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership: Supreme Court reaffirms “The evidence on the part of
the appellants would reveal that instead of establishing ‘animus possidendi’ under hostile colour
of title, they have tendered evidence indicating only permissive possession and at the same time
failed to establish the time from which it was converted to adverse to the title of the respondent
which is open and continuous for the prescriptive period.

Order XXIII of CPC

Introduction
- Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) states the rules for the
withdrawal and adjustment of the suit.
- This order basically contains provisions which help to reduce the over burden of the courts
and by allowing parties to go for an alternative approach to resolve their dispute.
- The rules stated under this order are used to avoid litigation by making compromise
agreements between the parties and by allowing the parties to abandon suits or claims.
- Order XXIII consists of seven rules (Rule 1, 1A, 2, 3, 3A, 3B and 4).
Detailed Analysis of the Rules
 Rule 1: Withdrawal of Suit or Abandonment of Part of Claim
 Plaintiff may abandon his suit or any part of the suit against the defendant.
 In case of minor the leave of the court is required for abandonment of suit or any of it.
 A part of an application for the leave of the court shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the
next friend.
 Where the Court is satisfied -
 That a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect.
 That there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the
subject matter of the suit or part of a claim.
 It may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such
suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-
matter of such suit or such part of the claim.

i. Where the plaintiff—

- Abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1).
- Withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule
(3), he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from
instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim.

- Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorise the Court to permit one of several
plaintiffs to abandon a suit or part of a claim under sub-rule (1), or to withdraw, under
sub-rule (3), any suit or part of a claim, without the consent of the other plaintiff.

Rule 1A: When Transposition of Defendants as Plaintiffs may be Permitted.

Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under rule 1, and a defendant applies to be
transposed as a plaintiff under rule 10 of Order I the Court shall, in considering such application,
have due regard to the question whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as
against any of the other defendants.

Rule 2: Limitation Law not Affected by First Suit

In any fresh suit instituted on permission granted under the last preceding rule, the plaintiff shall be
bound by the law of limitation in the same manner as if the first suit had not been instituted.

Rule 3: Compromise of Suit

 Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in
part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties or where
the defendant satisfied the plaintiff in respect to the whole or any part of the subject-matter
of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded,
and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit,
whether or not the subject matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same
as the subject-matter of the suit.

 Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or
satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but not adjournment
shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be
recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.
Rule 3A: Bar to Suit
A plain reading of this provision indicates that the earlier suit should have been disposed of by
passing a decree in view of a compromise entered into between the parties. In such a contingency, a
subsequent suit raising a challenge that the compromise recorded in the earlier suit was not lawful
would not lie.

Rule 3B: No Agreement or Compromise to be Entered in a Representative Suit without Leave

of Court
 No agreement or compromise in a representative suit shall be entered into without the leave
of the Court expressly recorded in the proceedings; and any such agreement or compromise
entered into without the leave of the Court as recorded shall be void.
 Below granting such leave, the Court shall give notice in such manner as it may think fit to
such persons is as may appear to it to be interested in the suit.

Rule 4: Proceedings in Execution of Decrees not Affected: Nothing in this Order shall apply to
any proceedings in execution of a decree or order.

Case Laws
 Baidyanath Nandi v. Shyama Sundar Nandi (1943): The Calcutta High Court held that
when one of several plaintiffs' desires to withdraw from the suit without reserving a liberty to
institute a fresh suit in respect of the same matter, the consent of the co-plaintiff is not
necessary.
 Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh (2020): The Supreme Court held that the suit for a
declaration which was filed before the civil court was not maintainable in the light of Order
XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. The bar also applies to strangers to compromise proceeding.
 Moti Dinshaw Irani and Anr. v. Phiroze Aspandiar Irani and Ors. (2024): It was held
that if the earlier suit itself was pending and no decree therein had been passed, there would
be no question of the provisions of Rule 3A of Order XXIII of the CPC.
 Kapoori Bai & Ors. v. Neelesh & Ors. (2023): The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held
that if one of several plaintiffs having independent right to relief and which is severable from
the right claimed by the other plaintiffs seeks to abandon the claim in the suit, then the Court
can grant such relief in its discretion.

Conclusion
The important part of Order XXIII of CPC is that it puts an end to the litigation. It saves time and
money of the parties. It also reduces the burden of courts. This order gives the best alternative to
litigation to the parties to resolve their dispute in an amicable way. It encourages settlement
between the parties with leave of the court