The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

What the Code of Civil Procedure is, and how it is organised

The Code of Civil Procedure is Act 5 of 1908, in force since 1 January 1909. It is procedural law: it does not decide who owns a house or whether a contract was broken, but how a court is asked, and how it goes about answering.

It is built in two layers. The body of the Code runs to 158 numbered sections — some since repealed — and 13 lettered sections added later, such as 35A and 100A. They set principles: jurisdiction, res judicata, appeals, execution, inherent powers. The First Schedule then contains 51 Orders, each made up of rules, which set out the working detail. References take the form "Order VIII, rule 1".

The 2024 reform replaced the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act; the CPC was not touched. Its most significant recent changes came from the amending Acts 46 of 1999 and 22 of 2002, both largely in force from 1 July 2002, and from the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016), which modified several provisions for commercial disputes of a specified value from 23 October 2015.

Which court a civil suit is filed in

Section 9 is the starting point: the courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those whose cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. A suit about a right to property or to an office is civil even if deciding it turns on questions of religious rites or ceremonies.

Two further rules stop the same dispute being fought twice. A court must not proceed with a suit whose matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in an earlier suit between the same parties still pending in a competent court (s. 10, stay of suit). And a court must not try a matter that was directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and was heard and finally decided (s. 11, res judicata). Explanation IV to section 11 extends this to any matter that might and ought to have been raised in the former suit.

Starting a suit: the plaint, notice to the Government, and court fees

A suit is instituted by presenting a plaint, and the facts in it must be proved by affidavit (s. 26). Three dates then need to be kept apart. The court issues a summons calling the defendant to appear and answer the claim (s. 27; Order V, rule 1). The summons names a day for appearance, which section 27 says is to be not beyond thirty days from the institution of the suit. And the summons is actually served on the defendant — which the Code does not guarantee will happen within thirty days, and which in practice often takes longer.

What matters for the defendant is the date of actual service. The thirty days for a written statement run from service of the summons, not from the filing of the suit or the day named for appearance (Order V, rule 1(1)).

Before suing the Central or a State Government, or a public officer for an act done in an official capacity, written notice must be delivered stating the cause of action, the plaintiff’s name, description and residence, and the relief claimed; the suit cannot be filed until two months after delivery (s. 80(1)). A suit for urgent or immediate relief may be filed without notice with the court’s leave, but no relief, interim or otherwise, will be granted until the Government or officer has had a reasonable opportunity to show cause (s. 80(2)). A suit is not dismissed merely for an error or defect in the notice, if it identified the person serving it, was delivered to the right authority, and substantially indicated the cause of action and relief claimed (s. 80(3)).

A person who cannot afford the court fee for a plaint may apply to sue as an indigent person under Order XXXIII. Explanation I to rule 1 defines an indigent person as one without sufficient means, apart from property exempt from attachment and the subject-matter of the suit, to pay the prescribed fee.

The written statement, adjournments and judgment: the time limits

In an ordinary, non-commercial suit, the defendant must present a written statement of defence within thirty days of being served with the summons. The proviso lets the court allow it on a later day, for reasons recorded in writing, and says that day shall not be later than ninety days from service (Order VIII, rule 1; Order V, rule 1). That proviso has no forfeiture clause.

The Supreme Court has held that the ninety-day limit, though worded as mandatory, is directory because it is a rule of procedure, so a court keeps the power to take a written statement on record after ninety days. That is the exception, not the rule: time is extended only for reasons shown by the defendant and recorded by the court, not where the delay comes from laxity or gross negligence, and costs may be imposed (Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480; Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344). The Court has since repeated that the power is used not as a matter of course but with great caution (PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. v. Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd., 2024 INSC 654).

For a commercial dispute of a specified value, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 substituted a stricter proviso: a written statement may be allowed, for recorded reasons and on payment of costs, up to one hundred and twenty days from service; once those days expire the defendant forfeits the right to file it and the court shall not allow it to be taken on record. The Supreme Court has held that limit mandatory (SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210). The forfeiture applies only to these commercial suits.

Once a hearing begins, the court may adjourn for sufficient cause and recorded reasons, but no party may be granted more than three adjournments during the hearing of the suit, and the fact that a party’s pleader is busy in another court is not a ground (Order XVII, rule 1). Judgment, if not pronounced at once, should be pronounced within thirty days of the hearing concluding and not ordinarily beyond sixty days (Order XX, rule 1). A commercial court must pronounce judgment within ninety days of the conclusion of arguments.

Settlement outside court, summary suits and temporary injunctions

Where the court sees elements of a settlement the parties might accept, section 89 requires it to formulate the terms, take the parties’ observations, and refer the dispute to arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including a Lok Adalat, or mediation. A reference to a Lok Adalat takes effect under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; arbitration and conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 89 was inserted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1 July 2002.

Order XXXVII provides a summary procedure for suits on bills of exchange, hundis and promissory notes, and for suits to recover a debt or liquidated money demand arising on a written contract, an enactment or a guarantee. The defendant must obtain leave to defend. How that route works for unpaid money is covered on GetNyay’s money-recovery guide.

Order XXXIX, rule 1 lets the court grant a temporary injunction where property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated, where the defendant threatens to dispose of property to defraud creditors, or where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff. How that applies to shared family property is covered on the partition-suit page.

Appeal, second appeal, review and revision

A decree can be challenged in four different ways, and they are not interchangeable. The table sets out who hears each, and the condition the Code attaches. Time limits for filing appeals are set by the Limitation Act, 1963, not by the Code.

Two further provisions sit behind all of them. Where a decree or order is varied or reversed, the court that passed it must, on application, restore the parties to the position they would have been in — including refund of costs and payment of interest (s. 144, restitution). And nothing in the Code limits the court’s inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of its process (s. 151).