Full physical source page · unreviewed extraction

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: page 346

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, India Code delivered snapshot 393b8848fdfc476a, physical page 346, typed edition 77428589d4e341672ed6a3e5f663be7dec530c42d0600064ac1314302939267d. Unreviewed extraction.

Source: official India Code PDF · catalog record. Fetched 2026-10-19T23:06:46Z. SHA-256 393b8848fdfc476a21cc3abf4f0d3f510557e2dff6fc6914b1f379bea1730614.

Legal currency, territorial applicability and extraction fidelity are unverified. Catalog checksum/size differs from the delivered PDF; both identities are retained. Sections, state notes and footnotes share these physical pages. Compare the full original image.

Retained layout text

   9. Suits by or against firms.—Attention is directed to the new provision in regard to suits by or against
firms, (Order XXX) which will, we hope, prove acceptable to the commercial community.
   10. New procedure.—We have given power to provide by Rules for Counter-claims, Third Party
Procedure, Summary Procedure in suits for debt or liquidated demands as for instance, rent, or any other
definite sum payable under a contract and Originating summons. We are of opinion that these forms of
proceeding may usefully be adopted in some areas but that this is a matter which should be left for each
High Court to decide.
   11. Appeals.—As regards appeals from original decree we have departed but slightly from the existing
Code. We have thought it advisable to give legislative sanction to the view that no appeal shall lie from a
consent decree, or as to costs except by leave of the Court: but the most important change is that
incorporated in clause 97 which renders it obligatory upon a party, who considers himself aggrieved by a
preliminary decree, to appeal from that decree, at the risk of being precluded from disputing its
correctness on an appeal from the final decree. We feel strongly that this is a most useful provision, as
tending to that which is so desirable, viz., finality in litigation.
   As regards appeals from appellate decrees the only substantial departure from the existing Code is the
insertion of clause 103. Experience has shown the desirability of this clause, the effect of which will be to
avoid remands, with their consequent delay and expense.
   As regards appeals from orders a comparison of clause 104 of the Bill with section 588 of the existing
                                                                    e
Code would support a prima facie inference that the right of appeal from Orders had been materially
                                                              od
curtailed. But this inference is dispelled on looking at sub-clause (h) of clause 104 which allows an appeal
from any Order made under Rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by Rules. We have gone
                                                        aC
carefully into the question of the cases in which an appeal should be allowed from these Orders and our
conclusion is expressed in the Rules themselves.
                                                   di
    12. Rules.—The distribution of the provisions of the Code between the body of the Bill and the Rules
                                               In
is a matter on which opinions may well differ. The general principle on which we have proceeded has
been to keep in the body of the Bill those provisions which appear to us to be fundamental and those
provisions which confer powers operating outside the Province in which the Court is situated. In some
case we have adopted the plan of inserting leading provisions in the bill, stating in general terms the
powers of the Court, and of leaving the details to Rules; The result this rearrangement is to reduce the
Act, as distinct from Schedules, to 155 clauses. The existing order of sequence has, speaking generally,
been maintained but the reduced bulk of the bill has rendered it no longer necessary to reproduce the
division into Chapters.
   It is Proposed to vest the Power of making Rules in High courts, subject to the control of Local
Governments (or in the case of the Calcutta High Court of the Government of India), but we think it most
desirable that in exercising this power the Courts should have the advice of representatives of the various
branches of the legal profession, and we have accordingly provided that in the case of chartered High
Courts and of Chief Courts, Rules shall only be made after those Courts have taken the opinion of the
Rule Committee on which there will be representatives of the Bar, of Vakeels or Pleaders and in
Presidency Towns of Attornies. In the case of other High Courts power has been given to establish such
Rule Committees as the Governor-General in Council may determine. It is believed that Standing
Committees of this kind will be of great value. We have thought it better to require the same sanction as is
required by the Indian High Courts Act of 1861, in order that the rule making power should correspond
with the power conferred under that Act; but we are of opinion that in the interest of uniformity, it is
expedient that all amendments of Rules should be communicated to the Government of India and to other
High Courts before sanction is given to them. This, we understand, can be effected by executive order.
  If our proposal is adopted it will probably be useful to publish annually in every Province some
manual corresponding to the English “Annual Practice” containing:-
   (1) the Act;
   (2) all rules of procedure made under it or under other Acts in the Province;
   (3) notes of decisions on the Act and Rules.

                                                    346

Compare original page image