0
This is a small attempt to trace out the amended CPC provisions and I am sure it will provide the Munsiff-Magistrate candidates to find out the effect of different provisions by way of various amendments in CPC. This is the very first of its kind in my blog. Hope you will benefit from this detailed post. This is the FIRST part.

  • We are required to file an affidavit along with the suit when we present plaints which we generally term as "suit affidavit". It is a result of amendment act of 1999 with effect from(hereinafter referred as w.e.f) 2002.[See.S.26(2)]
  • The defendant enters appearance in pursuance of summons. Do you know that a summons has to be issued to the defendant not beyond 30 days from the date of the institution of suit? This is added to S.27 w.e.f 2002.
  • Summons is issued to produce a document, or to appear in person and for both. It is a tool in the hands of the Court. This power is provided under Sec.30. But if the summons is not met with seriously the Court has other procedures to compel things happen in its way as provided in the summons. Those are warrant, attachment, imposing fine, imprisonment etc. It is provided under Sec.32. Before amendment act of 1999, the fine imposed on any person in order to compel his attendance as per a summons has been issued under Sec.30 was 500/- rupees. The maximum limit was increased to 5000/- rupees w.e.f 2002.[See S.32(c)]
  • We generally file execution petitions to get the fruits of the decree. The courts which pass a decree has jurisdiction to execute that decree. But what if it lacks jurisdiction? Suppose a money suit, as per Sec.20, can be filed where the cause of action or part of it arises. The immovable property which is highly necessary to execute the decree which may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and which belongs to the defendant may not be within the jurisdiction of that Court. The defendant also may not reside within the jurisdiction. In such circumstances the Court which passed a decree may on the application of the decree holder, send it for execution to another Court of competent jurisdiction. It is provided under Sec.39. Here a sub-section 4 is added whereby it is made clear that the Court which passed the decree cannot execute it if the person or property is outside its local jurisdiction. Before the amendment it was a sort of discretion. Order 21 Rule 3 is an exception where a Court can attach and sell the entire property if only part of the property is situated in its jurisdiction. [Read Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan 2007 (4) KLT SN 19 (C.No. 19) SC.]
  • A person could be detained in civil prison in execution of a decree where the decree is for the payment of money and the detention can be upto three months only where the decretal amount is above 5000 rupees. Earlier it was 1000 rupees.[See S.58(1)(a)]
  • Where the decree is for the payment of a sum of money exceeding 2000 rupees but not exceeding 5000 rupees, he could be detained for a period not exceeding 6 weeks. Earlier it was 500 and 1000.[See S.58(1)(b)]
  • You have seen that the lower limit is 2000 rupees. It is further made clearer by another newly added provision in 58(1A), where it is declared that when the total amount of decree does not exceed 2000 rupees no one can be detained in civil prison. Earlier the lower limit was 500 rupees.
  • In execution you can also attach and sell property. Sec.60 and its proviso speak of properties liable and not liable to attachment respectively in execution of decree. Salary is generally attachable. But under the proviso, as per clause (i) it is made clear that salary to the extent of first 1000 rupees and 2/3rd of the reminder cannot be attached in execution of a decree, where decree for maintenance is an exception. Previously it was 400 rupees and 1/2th of the reminder. The result is that more amounts could be attached from salary.
  • Generally when you attach a property in execution any private transfer of that property is considered void. But what if you already made a registered contract before the attachment. The position is made clear by amendment made in 2002 by adding 64(2).
  • Arbitration, conciliation, settlement through lok adalath, mediation are prescribed as modes of settlements out of Court by completely changing Sec.89 of code w.e.f 2002.[r/w Order 10]
  • The source of power of the court to grant interim relief is under S. 94. The plaintiff for getting interlocutory orders must satisfy the ingredients under Order38 or 39 respectively. But if it appears to the court that the plaintiff availed the orders on insufficient grounds the court may on the application of defendant award a reasonable compensation to him for the expense of injury caused. Upto 50,000 rupees can be awarded unlike earlier cost of just 1000 rupees.
  • In the case of appeals under Sec.96(4) the amount increased from 3000 to 10000.
  • Sec.100A completely substituted w.e.f 2002.
  • Sec.102 completely substituted w.e.f 2002.
  • The power of Revision by High Court is provided under S.115. In sub-section (1) the proviso has been substituted w.e.f 2002.
  • S.115(3) has been added w.e.f 2002 which says that revision shall not operate as stay of suit or other proceeding.
  • You always pray for time for something in the courts. Have you ever thought why you seek for time? The courts are now trying to move on a faster pace inorder to limit the undecided pending cases and also to encourage new litigants. After various amendment committees delay was found out as a major problem which defeats justice. Inorder to curb inordinate delay various time slots under the code has been refixed. However S.148 is a provision where you can seek enlargement of time eventhough the period originally fixed to do a certain thing may have expired. But the time may not be granted as a matter of course. Hence the period of 30 limited days has been introduced u/S.148 w.e.f 2002.
  • We know that the suit will commence by institution of plaint. The plaint has to be filed in duplicate also w.e.f 2002. [See.O4 R1(1)]
  • In order to give effect to the filing of duplicate plaint O4R1(3)has been introduced.

Post a Comment

Do not use abusive language

 
Top