Basic Principles of CPC

10 Fundamental Principles: The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Principle I: “An issue need not be framed on a point of law”

In the matter of Lakshmikant Shreekant (HUF) V/s M.N. Dastur & Co. Ltd., 1998 (44) DRJ
502, it was held that, an issue need not be framed on a point of law which is perfectly clear
and that the court is required to apply its mind and understand the facts before framing the
issue and that if a plea is mala fide or preposterous or vexatious, and can be disposed of
without going into the facts, or is contrary to law or the settled legal position, the court will
not be justified in adopting a hands off policy and allow the game of the defendant to have its
way. Further, in the matter of: Zulfiquar Ali Khan V/s Straw Products Ltd., 87 (2000) DLT
76, it was observed that a litigant often takes all sorts of false/ legally untenable pleas and
legal process should not be allowed to be exercised by such litigant and only such pleas
which give rise to clear and bona fide dispute or triable issues should be put to trial and not
illusory, unnecessary or mala fide issues, based on false/ untenable pleas.
The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be
decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts
necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the
plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or
relief, by framing an appropriate issue.
Principle II: “Plaint/Written Statement filed in a civil suit is a private document”

In the matter of: Sunny (Minor) & Anr V/s Raj Singh & Ors, CS (OS) No. 431/2006, High
Court of Delhi, Date of Decision: 17.11.2015, Coram: Valmiki Mehta, J., it was held that:
“…Written statement filed in a civil suit is a private document, and this private document in
public record has to be proved by summoning the file containing the written statement and
thereafter the certified copy being proved and exhibited in accordance with law…”
Principle III: “The whole purpose of trial on preliminary issues is to save time and
money”
In the matter of: Kuldeep Singh Pathania V/s Bikram Singh Jaryal, Civil Appeal No.
4080/2014, Supreme Court of India, Date of Decision: 24.01.2017, Coram: Kurian Joseph &
A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ., it was observed that:
Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Contact: advocate.shivamgoel@gmail.com
1
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3306307
1. Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’)
deals with settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues
agreed upon.
2. Order XIV, Rule 2 of the CPC provides for disposal of a suit on a preliminary issue
and under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2, if the court is of opinion that a case or part thereof
can be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first, in case it relates
to: ‘jurisdiction of the court’ or ‘bar to entertaining the suit’.
3. After the 1976 amendment to the CPC, the scope of a preliminary issue under Order
XIV, Rule 2 (2) is limited only to two areas: (i) Jurisdiction of the Court, and, (ii) Bar
to the suit as created by any law for the time being in force.
4. The whole purpose of trial on preliminary issue is to save time and money. Though it
is not a mini-trial, the court can and has to look into the entire pleadings and the
materials available on record, to the extent not in dispute. But that is not the situation
as far as the enquiry under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC is concerned. That is only
on institutional defects. The court can only see whether the plaint, or rather the
pleadings of the plaintiff, constitute a cause of action. Pleadings in the sense where,
even after the stage of written statement, if there is a replication filed, in a given
situation the same also can be looked into to see whether there is any admission on
the part of the plaintiff.
5. Under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, the court has to take decision looking at the
pleadings of the plaintiff only and not on the rebuttal made by the defendant or any
other materials produced by the defendant.
6. For an enquiry under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) of the CPC, only the pleadings of the
plaintiff can be looked into even if it is at the stage of trial of preliminary issues under
Order XIV, Rule 2 (2) of the CPC. But the entire pleadings on both sides can be
looked into under Order XIV, Rule 2(2) of the CPC to see whether the court has
jurisdiction and whether there is a bar for entertaining the suit.
7. In the matter of: Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors V/s Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V.
Fortune Express & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 100, it was held that:
a. A plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant
in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint under Order
VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.

2
b. The court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a
cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the court
exercising the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.
c. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact
which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its
entirety taking those averments to be correct.
d. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for
obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be
stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on
are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, willful default, undue influence or of the
same nature.
e. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination
by the court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the judge the plaintiff may not
succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint.
Principle IV: “The purpose of admission/denial is to deny only those documents whose
existence, genuineness or authenticity is disputed”
In the matter of: Burger King Corporation V/s Techchand Shewakramani & Ors, CS
(COMM) 919/2016 & CC (COMM) 122/2017, High Court of Delhi, Date of Decision:
27.08.2018, Coram: Prathiba M. Singh, J., it was held that:
a. It is often seen that at the stage of ‘Admission/Denial of Documents’ as a matter of
practice, large number of documents belonging to the parties to the lis are denied
indiscriminately; although documents which are available publicly and are verifiable,
such as trademark certificates, copyright certificates from India and other countries, as
also documents issued by governmental authorities ought not to be permitted to be
denied. Such denials are completely bereft of merit and tend to prolong the trial in a
suit.
b. The purpose of admission/denial is to deny only those documents whose existence,
genuineness or authenticity is disputed and not to merely harass the opposite side into
proving each and every document with certified copies/original.
c. In commercial matters, the process of admission/denial deserves to be cut short where
the dispute between the parties is very narrow. Documents such as e-mail

3
correspondences, legal notices, replies, internet printouts, etc. ought not to be
permitted to be denied.
d. The practice adopted by parties to deny in general all the documents of the opposite
side has been the bane of adjudication of civil suits. Admission/Denial Affidavits
ought to be fair, bona fide and not with an intention to prolong trials.
Rule 8 of Chapter VII (Appearance by Defendant, Written Statement, Set-Off, Counter-
Claim and Replication) of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 states that:
“Cost where document denied without just reason or cause- Where any party, without just
reason or cause, denies a document, which the party propounding is compelled to prove, the
Court may, award costs of proof of such document on the party denying the same.”
Rule 4 of Order XI (Disclosure, Discovery and Inspection of Documents in Suits before the
Commercial Division of a High Court or a Commercial Court) introduced by virtue of the
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High
Courts Act, 2015 states as under:
“4. Admission and denial of documents- (1) Each party shall submit a statement of
admissions or denials of all documents disclosed and of which inspection has been
completed, within fifteen days of the completion of inspection or any later date as fixed by the
Court.
(2) The statement of admissions and denials shall set out explicitly, whether such party was
admitting or denying-
(a) Correctness of contents of a document;
(b) Existence of a document;
(c) Execution of a document;
(d) Issuance or receipt of a document;
(e) Custody of a document.
Explanation- A statement of admission or denial of the existence of a document made in
accordance with sub-rule 2(b) shall include the admission or denial of the contents of a
document.
(3) Each party shall set out reasons for denying a document under any of the above grounds,
bare and unsupported denials shall not be deemed to be denials of a document and proof of
such documents may then be dispensed with at the discretion of the Court.

4
(4) Any party may however submit bare denials for third party documents of which the party
denying does not have any personal knowledge of, and to which the party denying is not a
party to in any manner whatsoever.
(5) An affidavit in support of the statement of admissions and denials shall be filed
confirming the correctness of the contents of the statement.
(6) In the event that the Court holds that any party unduly refused to admit a document under
any of the above criteria, costs (including exemplary costs) for deciding on admissibility of a
document may be imposed by the Court on such party.
(7) The Court may pass orders with respect to admitted documents including for waiver of
further proof thereon or rejection of any documents.”
Principle V: “A litigant, who approaches the court is bound to produce all the documents
executed by him which are relevant to the litigation”
In the matter of: State of Himachal Pradesh V/s Jiwan Singh, ILR 1980 HP 516, it was held
that:
“…It is now well settled that where a party is in possession of material documents which are
necessary to be produced for the determination of the controversy between the parties, it is
the duty of that party to produce the same irrespective of the fact that the burden of proof
may be on the opposite party…”
Further, in the matter of: Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar V/s Mahomed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC
1413, it was held that:
“… We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie
on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in
his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound
practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the
best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in
controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof…”
Also, in the matter of: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu V/s Jagannath, 71 (1998) DLT 1, it was
held that:
“… A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by
him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain

5
advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as
on the opposite party…”
Similarly, in the matter of: Krishna Lal Kacker V/s Ram Chander, 139 (2005) PLR 269, it
was observed that:
“…If a litigant withholds a vital document or information in order to gain advantage on the
other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the other
party…”
Principle VI: “Judgment on Admissions: An admission could be contained even in a

document admitted by the opposite party and need not necessarily be in the pleadings”
In the matter of: Kumari Sushila Yadav V/s Lt. Col. (Retd) Atul Chaudhary & Ors, FAO
(OS) No. 292/2015, High Court of Delhi, Date of Decision: 14.01.2016, Coram: Pradeep
Nandrajog & Mukta Gupta, JJ., it was observed that:
1. No decree on admissions under Order 12, Rule 6 of the CPC can be passed in case
there are triable issues which require adjudication, that is, full blown trial.
2. An admission could be contained even in a document admitted by the opposite party
and need not necessarily be in the pleadings.
3. There is a distinction between vague pleadings by a party not giving birth to a triable
issue, and a pleading which otherwise may not be vague but is of a kind which needs
to be supported by documentary evidence and remains a mere pleading without any
documentary evidence and hence not giving birth to a triable issue.
4. If a pleading of a party is contradicted by an admission of the party in a
document and unless that admission is explained, the pleading would be required
to be treated as sham and hence, not giving birth to a triable issue.
5. A party who can produce, but does not produce, the documents, makes no case. In all
judicial adjudication in courts, it is: facts, law and application of law. ‘Facts’ have
three sub-elements: pleadings, documents and evidence, for then follows, the law
(selection and interpretation) and application of law to the facts as established. Facts
and documents are the very base while material facts (with requisite degree of detail)
come through pleadings. Pleadings should not be bereft of material particulars.
Principle VII: “Evasive denial is no denial in law”

6
In the matter of: Allora Electric & Cable Co. V/s M/s. Shiv Charan & Bros, 1998 III AD
Delhi 487, it was observed that:
1. The object of Order 8, Rule 5 of the CPC is to narrow the issues to be tried in the case
and to enable either party to know what the real point is to be discussed and decided.
The word “specifically” qualifies not only the word “deny” but also the words “stated
to be not admitted” and therefore a refusal to admit must also be specifically stated. A
defendant can admit or deny the several allegations made in the plaint and if he
decides to deny any such allegations, he must do so clearly and explicitly.
2. A vague or evasive reply by the defendant cannot be considered to be a denial of fact
alleged by the plaintiff. A party is expected to expressly deny the fact which is within
its knowledge and a general denial is not a specific denial.
3. Evasive or vague denial of facts in the written statement of the averments made in the
plaint should be taken to be no denials and so deemed to be admitted.
In the matter of: A. Shanmugam V/s Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula, 2012 (6) SCC 430, it was
observed that, the pleadings must set-forth sufficient factual details to the extent that it
reduces the ability to put forward a false or exaggerated claim/defence. The pleadings must
inspire confidence and credibility. If false averments, evasive denials or false denials are
introduced, then the court must carefully look into it while deciding a case and insist that
those who approach the court must approach it with clean hands.
Principle VIII: “On vague pleadings, no issue arises”

1. If the pleadings do not give sufficient details, that is, the pleadings are bereft of
material particulars, they will not raise an issue, and the court can reject the claim or
pass a decree on admissions. On vague pleadings, no issue arises.
2. Framing of issues is an extremely important stage in a civil trial. Judges are expected
to carefully examine the pleadings and documents before framing of issues in a given
case. Judges are expected to carefully examine the pleadings and documents before
framing of issues in a given case.
3. In the matter of: Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes V/s Erasmo Jack de
Sequeria, 2012 (5) SCC 370, it was observed that, the court must ensure that
pleadings of a case must contain sufficient particulars; insistence on details reduces
the ability to put forward a non-existent or false claim or defence.

7
4. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean
hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of
such information must also be disclosed. A litigant is bound to make “full and true
disclosure of facts”. (See: Kishore Samrite V/s State of U.P., 2012 (10) SCALE 330)
5. The pleadings are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that
it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the
parties, and to prevent any deviation from the course which litigation on particular
causes must take.
6. If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication, and
the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the
plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party
from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. (See: Bhagwati Prasad
V/s Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735)
7. Interestingly, in the matter of: Nedunuri Kameswaramma V/s Sampati Subba Rao,
AIR 1963 SC 884, it was observed that:
“… No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was framed, could have been
more elaborate; but since the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led
all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of
the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or
that there was that mistrial which vitiates proceedings. We are, therefore, of opinion
that the suit could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also that there is no
need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach
the right conclusion…”
Principle IX: “No amount of evidence can be looked into, upon a plea which was never
put forward in the pleadings”
In the matter of: Bachhaj Nahar V/s Nilima Mandal & Anr, (2008) 17 SCC 491, it was
observed that:
1. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to
trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds
being shifted during trial.

8
2. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required
to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the
facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not
found in the plaint, the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and
contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief.
3. Fundamental rules of civil procedure are as follows:
a. No amount of evidence can be looked into, upon a plea which was never put
forward in the pleadings. A question which did arise from the pleadings and
which was not the subject-matter of an issue, cannot be decided by the court.
b. A court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The court should confine its decision
to the question raised in pleadings. Nor can it grant a relief which is not claimed
and which does not flow from the facts and the cause of action alleged in the
plaint.
c. A factual issue cannot be raised or considered for the first time in a second appeal.
d. In a civil suit, relief to be granted can be only with reference to the prayers made
in the pleadings.
e. No amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be
looked into to grant any relief.
f. It would be hazardous to hold that in a civil suit whatever be the relief that is
prayed, the court can on examination of facts grant any relief as it thinks fit. In
civil suits, grant of relief is circumscribed by various factors like court fee,
limitation, parties to the suits, as also grounds barring relief, like res judicata,
estoppel, acquiescence, non-joinder of causes of action or parties, etc. which
require pleading and proof. Civil court cannot grant any relief ignoring the
prayer. Such relief may be appropriate with reference to a writ proceeding. It
may even be appropriate in a civil suit while proposing to grant as relief, a lesser
or smaller version of what is claimed. It is always open to the parties to get any
issue or dispute settled by mediation or by direct negotiation. In a suit for recovery
of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the court cannot grant a decree for Rs. 10,00,000/-. In a suit for
recovery of possession of property ‘A’, court cannot grant possession of property
‘B’. In a suit praying for permanent injunction, court cannot grant a relief of
declaration or possession.

9
g. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a
relief, and when the defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief,
if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice.
The Civil Procedure Code is an elaborate codification of the principles of natural
justice to be applied to civil litigation. The provisions are so elaborate that many a
time, fulfilment of the procedural requirements of the Code may itself contribute to
delay. But any anxiety to cut the delay or further litigation should not (and cannot) be
a ground to flout the settled fundamental rules of civil procedure.
Principle X: “A plea inconsistent with the pleas taken in original pleadings cannot be
permitted to be taken in subsequent pleadings”
In the matter of: Anant Construction (P) Ltd. V/s Ram Niwas, 1994 SCC Online Del 615, it
was held that-
1. A plea inconsistent with the case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint can never be
permitted to be raised in replication. So, also, a plea in rejoinder cannot be
inconsistent with the case set out by the defendant in his written statement. Any
subsequent pleading inconsistent with the original pleading should be refused to be
taken on record by the court and if taken should be struck off and taken off the file.
2. In Amarjeet Singh V/s Bhagwati Devi, 1982 (12) RLR 156, the Hon’ble Court held a
pleading to mean plaint and written statement only. A plaintiff can claim relief on the
basis of pleas in the plaint and not on pleas in the replication.
3. Subsequent pleadings are not substitute for amendment in original pleadings.

10

Basic Principles of CPC

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Basic Principles of CPC

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

10 Fundamental Principles: The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Principle I: “An issue need not be framed on a point of law”

Principle II: “Plaint/Written Statement filed in a civil suit is a private document”

Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Principle VI: “Judgment on Admissions: An admission could be contained even in a

Principle VII: “Evasive denial is no denial in law”

Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Principle VIII: “On vague pleadings, no issue arises”

Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Author: Shivam Goel, LL.M. (NUJS)

Вам также может понравиться