CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LIMITATION ACT
PART-1
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Q. 1. Define decree and analyse its essential elements. When a decree is called final?
OR
What is a decree? Explain its essential elements. Distinguish between preliminary decree and final decree. In what cases the preliminary decree is mandatory?
Ans. Definition of Decree. Section 2 (2) of the Code defines decree as follows:
“Decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which so far as regards the Courts expressing it conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include-
(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order; or
(b) any order for dismissal of default.
Explanation.- A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.
Decision dismissing suits for want of evidence or proof disposes of all matters in controversy, and is a decree. [AIR 1957 All. 107).
Arbitral award remains an award and does not become ‘decree’ as defined in Code of Civil Procedure. It is deemed to be decree only for limited purposes of enforcement. [Srei Equipment and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Khyoda Apik, AIR 2016 Cal. 293].
Essentials of a decree
In order that a decision of a Court may be a decree the following elements must be present:
(i) Formal expression of Adjudication. There can be no decree unless there was a suit, the decree is the logical conclusion of the suit and bears the fruits of litigation. To constitute a decision of a Court to be a decree there must be a formal expression of an adjudication meaning thereby a formal expression of judicial determination of the matter in dispute. Thus, if there is no judicial determination of any matter in dispute and it is not passed by a Court, there can be no decree. Thus following matters do not satisfy the aforesaid requisite of law and are held to be not a decree, namely:
(a) decision on a matter of administrative nature is not a decree, as being taken by the administrative authority not by a Court,
(b) an order dismissing a suit for default of appearance of parties is not a decree, and
(c) dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution is not a decree; because matters involved in the case have not been dealt with judicially.
Besides above, adjudication must be formally expressed. In another words it must be in manner provided by law ie. it must follow the judgment and must be drawn up separately. Any violation of manner provided by law shall vitiate the decree and consequently no appeal shall lie.
In Madan Naik v. Hansubala Devi, AIR 1983 SC 676, it is held that if there is no judicial determination of any matter in dispute, it shall not be treated as decree.
In Deep Chand v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1994 SC 1901, the Apex Court opined that to constitute a decision of a Court to be a decree it must contain either of the following characteristics:
(a) there must be an adjudication meaning thereby a judicial determination of the matter in dispute;
(b) decision on a matter of administrative nature is not a decree;
(c) an order dismissing a suit for default of appearance of parties is not a decree;
(d) dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution is not a decree;
(e) any judicial determination can only be called a decree when it is passed by a Court.
(ii) Suit before the Court.- There can be no decree unless there was a suit. Suit though not defined in the Code may be taken to mean civil, revenue or other proceedings which may be instituted by presentation of a plaint or application which may amount to plaint.
With regard to commencement of a suit the authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court is Pandurang v. Shantibai, (AIR 1989 SC 2240). In this case it was held that expression “suit” generally means proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint. But proceedings commencing with presentation of an application are also suit and decree passed on such suits is statutory decree and although actually they are not decree under Section 2 (2) of the Code, the examples of such statutory decree are decrees passed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Land Acquisition Act etc.
Every suit is commenced by a plaint. Rejection of an application to sue in forma pauperis is not a decree as there is no commencement of suit by presentation of a plaint.
A decision of a Tribunal is not a decree according to the definition contained in Section 2(2) of the Code. [Diwani Bros. v. Central Bank of India. AIR 1976 SC 1503].
(iii) The adjudication must have determined the rights of parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit.- Expression “rights of parties” mean substantive rights of the parties not merely procedural rights.
The term “parties” means the parties to the suit. It does not include third party de stranger to the suit. Thus, following things do not constitute an adjudication. An order of dismissal of the suit for default of appearance, order amending an execution petition, refusal to leave to sue in forma pauperis elc
For the purpose of this section the “matters in controversy” means subject-matter of the suit with regard to which some relief is demanded.
In order that a decision of a Court should become a decree there must be an adjudication in a suit with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and such determination must be of a conclusive nature. [Noor Bee v. Afroj Bee, (2004) 3 MPHJ 271 (MP)].
(iv) Conclusive adjudication.- This element connotes that such adjudication must be complete and final as regards the Court which passed it. Decree may conclusively determine the rights of the parties although it does not completely dispose of the suit. [Srijib v. Dandi Swami juggannath Asram, 73 CLJ 352 (536)]. The definition further provides that the rejection rejec of a plaint will also be a decree. Similarly, the determination of any question within restitution proceedings under Section 144 shall also be decree. But it does not mean that any interlocutory order in execution is decree, e.g., refusing adjournment or any process, or any decision on a question of law.
In Alcon Electronics v. Celem SA of FOS 34320 Roujan France, AIR 2017 SC 1, it was held that an order passed by a foreign Court is a decree executable by the Indian Courts.
In Leela Hotels Ltd. v. Housing and Urban Development Corp. Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 903, it was held that the award passed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 amounts to a decree.
Preliminary Decree
Where an adjudication decides the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in suit but does not completely dispose of the suit it will be a preliminary decree. In Mool Chand v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1995 SC 2493, it was held that a preliminary decree is only a stage in working out the rights of the parties which are to be finally adjudicated by a final decree.
A preliminary decree merely declares the rights and shares of the parties and leaves room for further inquiry to be held and conducted pursuant to the directions made in the preliminary decree. [K.E. Krishnan v. K.E. Valsan, AIR 2022 SC 2841).
Cases of Preliminary Decree
The Code provides for the passing of preliminary decree in the following classes of cases:
(1) Suits for possession and for rent or mesne profits (O. 20, R. 12).
(2) Administration suits (O. 20, R. 13).
(3) Suits for pre-emption (O. 20, R. 14).
(4) Suits for dissolution of partnership (O. 20, R. 15).
(5) Suits for accounts between principal and agent (O. 20, R. 16).
(6) Suits for partition and separate possession (O. 20, R. 18).
(7) Suits for foreclosure of a mortgage (O. 34, Rr. 2, 3).
(8) Suits for sale mortgaged (O. 34, Rr. 4. 5)
(9) Suits for redemption of a mortgage (O. 34, Rr. 7, 8).
The above list is not exhaustive, there may be preliminary decrees in cases not expressly provided for in the Code.
When a decree is called final
A decree may become final in two ways:
(1) When the time for appeal has expired without any appeal being filed or the matter has been decided by a decree of the highest Court.
(2) When the decree, so far as regard the Court passing it, completely disposes of the suit [Shankar v. Chandrakant, AIR 1995 SC 1211].
It is in the latter sense that the words “final decree” are used. The appealability of a matter therefore, will not affect its characters as a final decree.
A suit is completely disposed of when there is nothing further remaining to be decided in it. Thus when a decree is passed for a sum representing part mesne profits, and for subsequent mesne profits at a particular rate without directing any inquiry, the decree completely disposes of the suit and is, therefore, a final decree. If the Court, however, had merely declared a party is liable for mesne profits, the declaration though a decree does not completely disposes of the suit and is, therefore, only a preliminary decree and not a final one. [Bimla Thakurani v. Kashinath Panda, (1974) 1 SCWR 49).
A decree in which a condition is attached upon the fulfilment of which the decree holder is to enjoy the fruits of the decree, does not, because of that, become a preliminary decree, it is nevertheless a final decree.
Illustration
A files a suit for pre-emption against B. A decree is passed in A’s favour but with the condition that unless the purchase price is deposited within 2, months of the decree, the suit shall stand dismissed. The decree is a final one, as nothing is left for the Court to determine.
Ordinarily there will be only one final decree in a suit. But circumstances are not inconceivable which require the passing of more than one final decree in the same suit.
Illustration
A obtains a preliminary decree against B. B appeals and obtains an order for stay of further proceedings in the lower Court in respect of a portion of the subject-matter. The trial Court passes a final decree in respect of the portion not affected by the stay order. The appeal is subsequently dismissed. A can apply for a supplementary or second final decree in respect of the portion about which no final decree was passed.
Correction of Decree. Correction of decree is permissible only when there is clerical or arithmetical mistake on part of Court arising out of accidental slip or omissions. Decree cannot be corrected for mistake committed by litigating party. [Netrananda Dalai v. Ratnabati Nayak, AIR 2016 Ori. 138]
Compromise Decree- A compromise decree is as much a decree adjudicating the rights of the party Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Century Communications Ltd. AIR 2010 NOC 846 (All)]
Differences between preliminary decree and final decree.- An adjudication which decides the rights of parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in suit, but does not completely dispose of the suit would be a preliminary decree.
Where an adjudication completely disposes of the suit, it is final decree, and the decree which would be executable would be the final decree.
Preliminary decree is passed i in those cases in which Court has first to adjudicate upon the rights of parties and has then to stay. its hands for the time being until it is in a position to pass a final decree.
In Shanker. Chandrakant, AIR 1995 SC 1211, the Supreme Court observed, a preliminary decree is one which declares the rights and liabilities of the parties learning the actual result to be worked out in further proceedings. Then as a result of the further inquiries conducted pursuant to the preliminary decree the rights of the parties are fully determined and a decree is passed in accordance with such determination which is final. Both the decrees are in the same suit.
Q. 2. What is an order? What are the differences and similarities between an order and a decree?
Ans. Definition of an order. Order means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree. [Sec 2 (14)]
In Sinnamani v. G. Vettival, AIR 2012 SC 2372, it was held that an original petition cannot be construed or equated to be suit. The final order passed in original petition is an order and not a decree.
Following are held to be orders :-
(a) awards under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act,
(b) order under Section 98 of the Representation of People Act,
(c) award of Debt Board under Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act is not an order,
(d) an order rejecting an application to sue in forma pauperis,
(e) an order passed in execution proceedings
Difference between Order and Decree
There is a distinction between two expressions:
(1) When a decision is a decree, then unless expressly or otherwise provided:
(i) a first appeal invariably lies therefrom
(ii) a second appeal also lies on the grounds mentioned in Section 100, CPC
But when an adjudication is an order: (i) no appeal lies therefrom unless it is one of the ‘appealable orders’ specified in Section 104, C.P.C. and (ii) no second appeal lies in any case.
(2) The definition of an ‘order’ as the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree clearly points out the distinction between the decree and an ‘order
(3) A decree may be either preliminary or final but there is no such distinction in relation to orders.
(4) A decree finally determines the rights of parties to the suit but an order may or may not finally determine the rights of the parties.
(5) A decree originates from a suit filed by the plaintiff but an order may be made on an application.
Similarities between an Order and Decree. There are many similarities between the two which may be enumerated as follows:
(i) Both are given by the Court,
(ii) Both are formal expression of the Court.
(iii) Both relate to matters in controversy
(iv) Both are made in accordance with the provision of the Code
Q. 3. Distinguish between (a) ‘Order’ and ‘Judgment’ and (b) ‘judgment and decree’.
Ans. (a) Distinction between ‘Order’ and ‘Judgment’.- Order is defined in Section 2(14) of the C.P.C. as “the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree.”
Order’ refers to a formal order, or formal expression of a decision. It is an adjudication of a Court of law. It relates to determination of matter in controversy and is decision given by a Court.
Section 2 (9) of the Code defines Judgment’ as the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order.
Judgment should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. [Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan AIR 1999 SC 3381)
(b) Distinction between ‘judgment’ and ‘decree’.- According to Section 2 (9) of the C.P.C., judgment means the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order.
Every judgment other than that of a Court of Small Causes should contain (a) a concise statement of the case, (b) the points for determination, (c) the decision thereon, and (d) the reasons for such decision. The Small Causes Court’s judgment should contain only points Nos. (b) and (c).
Section 2 (2) of the CP.C. defines decree as follows:
“Decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Courts expressing it conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include.
(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or
(b) any order of dismissal for default.
Explanation – A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. Itmay be partly preliminary and may partly final.
Q. 4. Can the validity of the preliminary decree be challenged through an appeal which is brought against the final decree?
Ans. In this regard Section 97 of the Code provides where any party aggrieved by a preliminary decree passed after the commencement of this Code does not appeal from such decree he shall be precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal which may be preferred from the final decree.
Thus party aggrieved by preliminary decree has been precluded from impeaching the preliminary decree in the course of an attack upon the final decree. This is because the final decree is in its nature dependant and subordinate to it.
Q. 5. Define the following:
1. Foreign Court
2. Legal Representative
3. Mesne Profits
4. Movable Property
5. Judgment
6. Judgment Debtor
7. Decree-holder
8. Order
9. Foreign judgment.
Ans. 1. Foreign Court
‘Foreign Court’ means a Court which is situated outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government [Section 2 (5)]
Courts situated in Indian territory are not foreign Courts. Such Courts must be situated outside India. Thus the Courts of England, America, Japan, Cylone and other countries are foreign Courts. The Privy Council which was not regarded a foreign Court before independence is now regarded a foreign Court.
2. Legal Representative
It means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. [Section 2(11)]
Illustration. A dies leaving behind three sons B, C and D who are heirs in law. They shall be the legal representatives of A in respect of his estate. They can continue suit filed by the deceased.
According to the definition in the Code ‘legal representative’ includes any person, even a stranger who has no interest in the property and who is not a beneficial owner thereof but who intermeddles, with the estate of the deceased, ie., who may be in actual possession of the deceased’s estate without claiming any title for himself. The Code further provides that legal representative includes the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of a party who sues or is sued in a representative character.
The Supreme Court has held that “Legal Representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of “deceased person”. Estate does not mean the whole of the estate. Even a legatee who obtains only a part of the estate of the deceased under a Will can be said to represent his estate and is a legal representative [Andhra Bank Ltd. v. R. Srinivas, AIR 1962 SC 232]. Even the intermeddler of the estate of the deceased person is a legal representative. Syed Ashfaq Hussain v. D.D. of Consolidation, 1970 ALJ 1167 (LB) AIR 1956 SC 382)
Universal legatee under a Will executed by the deceased is his legal representative and so is a universal donee of the estate.
3. Mesne Profits
“Mesne profits of property” means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but it does not include profits due to improvement made by the person in wrongful possession [Section 2(12)]
The very essence of a claim for mesne profits is the wrongful possession by the defendant. It is awarded to the plaintiff by way of compensation for the period during which he was unlawfully kept out of possession. Thus a trespasser is liable to account for the profit which he actually made or which he would have made with ordinary diligence; but he is not accountable for any profits that may be the result of any improvements made by him, for example, digging a well or keeping a shed and realizing rent by letting it also. Jambu Rao v. Annappa, AIR 1941 Bom. 23].
The principles by which the Court should be guided in awarding and assessing mesne profits are that possession which has wrongly been retained should not be a source of profit to the wrongful possessor and that the person wrongfully kept out of possession is put in the same position financially as if right had been done.
4. Movable Property
Movable property is defined in Section 2 (13) of the Code as follows:
“It includes growing crops”.
Thus, growing crops are movable property and cases in which crops were held to be immovable property unless reaped are obsolete. The definition must be limited to the Code, for under Section 3 (26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, standing crops are immovable property.
5. Judgment
“Judgment” means the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. [Section 2 (9))
Thus from the definition given in the Code it is clear that there should be a statement for the grounds of the decision. In Vidyacharan Shukla v Khubchand, AIR 1964 SC 1099 it is held that to constitute a judgment there should be a statement for the grounds of the decision.
Every judgment other than that of a Court of Small Causes should contain (a) a concise statement of the case, (b) the points for determination, (c) the decision thereon, and (d) the reasons for such decision. The Small Causes Court’s judgment should contain only points Nos. (b) and (c). Sketchy orders by judicial officers which are not self contained and which cannot be appreciated by the Court of Appeal and Revision without an examination of the records are unsatisfactory and no judgments in the eye of law.
Judgment- What constitutes-[Section 2 (9); Order 20, Rule 4 (2)]. Judgment should be a self contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. (Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 SC 3381]
It is not necessary that a judgment be a decision on all the issues in the case. Thus an order deciding preliminary issues like constitutionality of statute is a judgment. Judgment on admission is not a matter of right, but a matter of discretion of Court. (S.M. Asif v. Virendra Kumar Bajaj, AIR 2015 SC 3678].
6. Judgment-debtor
“Judgment-debtor” means any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. [Section 2(10)]
7. Decree-holder
“Decree-holder” means any person in whose favour decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. [Section 2(3)]. A person may not be a party to suit but if an order capable of execution has been made in his favour, he is a ‘decree-holder.
In Dhani Ram v. Sri Ram, AIR 1980 SC 157 it was held that where a person is not a party to a suit but an order capable of execution has been passed in his favour such person shall be treated as decree-holder.
Where a decree for specific performance is passed, such decree is capable of execution both by the plaintiff as well as by the defendant, consequently even the defendant in such a case would be a ‘decree-holder’. The term ‘decree-holder does not include an attaching creditor.
8. Order
“Order” means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree [Section 2(14))
In Sinnamani v. G. Vethival, AIR 2012 SC 2372, it was held that an original petition cannot be construed or equated to be suit. The final order passed in original petition is an order and not a decree.
“Order” refers to a formal order. Judgment in contempt of Court case is not to be followed by decree or formal order. (Shyam Sunder v. Dau Dayal, AIR 1956 All. 70).
Following are held to be orders-
(a) Award under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(b) Order under Section 98 of the Representation of People Act.
(c) Award of Debt Board under Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act is not an order.
9. Foreign Judgment
“Foreign judgment” means the judgment of a Foreign Court. [Section 2 (6)) Whether a judgment is of a foreign Court or not shall be ascertained on the date on which it was delivered and not on the date when it is sought to be enforced. [Shitole v. Sanker Saran, AIR 1962 SC 1737 (1744)].
As per Section 13 Order of Supreme Court of California deciding dispute regarding custody of minor child must be construed as conclusive and binding between parties. Minor child being citizen of U.S.A., Supreme Court of California shall have most intimating contact and closest concern, although while being in India for temple visit, minor child had been snatched by mother from father with help from police. [P.K. Srikumar v. Harshitha Gopinathan AIR 2016 Mad. 187).
Suit of Civil Nature
Q. 6. Explain the suit of a civil nature under C.P.C. with the help of suitable examples.
OR
“Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suit of which their cognizance is barred.” Explain the term ‘suits of a Civil Nature’ as used in the provisions of C.P.C.
Ans. Suit of a Civil Nature
Section 9 of the Code provides that the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Thus Civil Court has jurisdiction to try “all suits of a civil nature except those suits of which their cognizance is express or implied barred.
Suit of a civil nature is not defined in the Code. In P.M.A. Metropolitan v. M.M. Marthomas, AIR 1995 SC 2001 the Court has defined it as thus.
A suit of a civil nature has been defined as a suit the object of which is the enforcement of a civil right or civil obligation against a citizen or the State itself. The right and obligation must relate to the private life of citizen. It is not the status of the parties to the suit but the subject-matter of the suit which determines whether or not suit is one of a civil nature.
Under Explanation 1 to Section 9 of the Code, it is provided that a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. Political and religious questions cannot be covered by the expression ‘civil right.
Thus, when the principal question in a suit is related to right to property and the adjudication incidentally involves the determination of a caste question or a question relating to religious rights and ceremonies the suit shall be of civil nature and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, is not barred and the Courts have power to adjudicate upon those questions also in order to decide the principal question of civil nature.
Further that suit in which principal question relate to the right of an “office” are suits of a civil nature and according to the Explanation 2 to Section 9, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place. Suits in which principal question relates to the right of an “office” are suits of a civil nature Thus, right to hold a lighted torch inside a chariot during temple car festival is a mere dignity not attached to the office.
On the aforesaid principle the following are suits of a civil nature:
(1) Suits relating to rights and properties. The word ‘property’ refers to all objects which can be owned by a person. The object owned may be a tangible one, whether movable or immovable or may be an intangible one, as for instance, patents, copyrights, trade-marks or right of franchise, right of fishery, right of ferry, hats and the like. But where the plaintiff has no interest in certain properties but simply claims to enjoy the management and superintendance of a temple, the Civil Court cannot take cognizance of it.
(2) Suit respecting temple and other religious properties.- Even idols are held to be persons who can own properties. The removal or alteration or religious marks in a temple is an interference with property in respect of which a suit will lie in a Civil Court. So also a suit will lie in respect of land on which a monastery stands or to recover possession of lands and religious manuscripts or to set aside a sale or mortgage of endowed property.
(3) Suits for damages of civil wrong and for breach of contract.- Civil wrongs or torts are infringement of personal rights. A suit for damages for civil wrongs will lie even if a criminal prosecution (in cases where it can be taken) is resorted to in the first instance. Thus suits for damages, libel or slander or for malicious prosecutions, or for false imprisonment, or for other kinds of torts are all suit of a civil nature. Breach of contractual rights will also give rise to a cause of action on which a civil suit will lie.
(4) Suit about rights to specific relief. Such as a right to a declaration or injunction or to the specific performance of a contract.
(5) Common law rights. For example the right of franchise, the right to use a public highway etc. Right of entry in a temple for worship is a civil right but that right can be exercised during hours of public worship.
(6) Suit relating to right of worship. There may be an exclusive rights of worship in class of persons in a particular temple or in a particular part of a temple and a suit will lie to restrain a rival class of persons from joining in such worship. Claim by panda to enter public temple with client for worship has been held to be a suit of civil nature.
Suits for secular office. Where no remuneration is payable to the office of the Secretary of an Association, a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the Secretary of the Association and that his dismissal from the office was not justified by the rules of the Association is not maintainable in a Civil Court.
(7) Suits relating to religious and other procession.- Claim for passing of procession through public streets not interfering with ordinary use by a public and subject to such directions as the Magistrate may lawfully give to prevent obstructions of the thoroughfares or breach of public peace. [Ghafoor v. Chhotey, AIR 1948 Oudh 279]
(8) Suits relating to right of burial. The right of burial is a civil right and interference with the right of reciting prayers in connection with such burial is an invasion of the civil right.
(9) Suits relating to right of person elected as an office-bearer- Suits to enforce the right of franchise.
(10) Suits for dissolution of marriage, or for restitution of conjugal rights
(11) Suits to enforce right of a person as a member of a club.
(12) Suits to enforce right under a contract.
(13) Suits for accounts
(14) Suits for contribution. The right of contribution is found on and is controlled by the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. It does not arise from contract. There can be no contribution among joint tortfeasors.
(15) Suits relating to partnership
(16) Suit for office and fee attached to religious office
(17) Suit to enforce right of privacy based on right of custom.
(18) Suits relating to expulsion from caste or castes property.- Where the question in a suit relates principally to caste property, civil suit will lie for its recovery and where a man is ex-communicated by his caste, his status, character or reputation are affected and civil rights infringed, a suit will lie to set aside wrongful expulsion from caste.
(19) Suits relating to validity of Acts of the legislature.
(20) Suits by a servant against his master alleging mala fide transfer
(21) Suits for demarcating a boundary of the property.
(22) A divorced Muslim woman can file a suit of a civil nature for the recovery of dowry articles. Her rights is not taken away by the provision of Section 3 (2) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. She has a right to avail either remedy as both were available to her. The aforementioned observation was made in Amirshah v. Salımbai, AIR 2006 Bom. 302
The following are not suits of a civil nature
(1) Suits involving mainly caste questions. Where the principal question in a suit relates to a caste the suit is not one of Civil nature
(2) Suits relating to purely religious rights ar ceremonies-Suit to establish mere dignity or honour even though connected with an office is not maintainable
(3) Suits for upholding mere dignity or honour
(4) Suits for voluntary payment not based on agreement or prescription.
(5) Suits expressly barred by some enactment.
(6) Suits relating to political question.
(7) Suits against public policy.
(8) Wak) property-In case of Wakf Imambara Implipuria Khandwa v Khurshida Bi. AIR 2009 M.P 238, the M.P High Court held that a suit for ejectment of a tenant from waki property is maintainable before the Waki Tribunal and not before a Civil Court. The word “any dispute as used in Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 would include suit for ejectment of a tenant also and not merely title disputes.
But it is decided in the case of Sk. Abdul Matallib alias S.K. Saiful Islam v Abu Naim Siddique, [AIR 2016 NOC 761 (Cal)] that suit for eviction from Waki property would be triable by Civil Court.
Thus, Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suit of which their cognizance is barred. A suit is said to be “expressly barred” when it is barred by any enactment for the time being in force. Such as disputes relating to rights and obligations created by Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not covered by the jurisdiction of Civil Court. A decree of Civil Court against dismissal of conductor from service was declared to be nullity on this ground in State of Haryana v. Bikar Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2473
Suits may be barred impliedly when they are barred by general principles of law, as when they are barred being against the public policy or State or State Policy, eg. suit by a witness to recover money agreed to be paid to him for giving evidence in a Court of Law, suit to enforce an agreement to stifle criminal prosecution, suits based on illegal or immoral contracts, suits to realise rent of a house used as a prosecution den.
Adjudication of issues of titles. In Kutchilal Rameshwar Ashram Trust A. K. Trust v. Collector, Haridwar, AIR 2018 SC 814, the Court held that adjudication of issues on titles cannot be made by administrative authorities of State, however, recourse must be made to ordinary civil jurisdiction of Court of competent jurisdiction.