This article has been written by Jatin Sharma pursuing a Diploma in Legal English Communication – oratory, writing, listening and accuracy from LawSikho.

This article has been edited and published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction

When there is a violation of civil legal rights, his first thought would be to file a case against the violator in a civil court with the competency to try the matter. The procedure for it would be followed as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which talks about for instituting a suit the presentation of the plaint is the first step by the plaintiff, upon which the defendant files the written statement on his defence, Both the plaint and written statement conjunctively form the “Pleadings”. After the stage of pleadings is completed, the main issues between both parties become clear. The next stage would be “issues framing.”. This stage of examination (order 10) of the parties and their matter in controversy to suit and issue the framing process (order 14) is also known as the “first hearing”. The court has the power to pronounce judgement at the first stage of hearing, as per Order 15 of the Code.

Meaning of disposal of a suit

The meaning of the word disposed is not generally as given in the code of civil procedure but in a general sense, it was understood as when the court completes all the necessary proceedings needed to complete an issue and no further changes, examinations, etc. are needed to take the case further, the court disposes of the case as it seems fit, recording the reasons for such disposal.

Meaning of first hearing

The expression “first hearing” has not been defined anywhere in the Code. The first hearing of a suit is the day on which the court goes into the pleadings of the parties to understand their contentions. As stated above, the machinery of a court is set in motion by the presentation of a plaint, which is the first stage in the suit. The second stage is the filing of the written statement by the defendant. The third important stage in the suit is the framing and settlement of issues and the day on which such issues are framed is the first hearing of the suit. In cases in which no issues need to be framed, i.e., a small cause suit, the first hearing would be the day on which the trial starts.

Hence, the day on which the courts apply their judicial minds to a suit, either for the issue framing or examining the evidence, can be said to be “the first day of hearing of the suit.” In another sense, the first hearing is the date when for the first time, the case is “called out for hearing and gone into” and not the date when the case was fixed for hearing but was gone into.”

In Siraj Ahmad Siddique vs. Shri Prem Nath Kapoor (1993), the Supreme Court said that “the date of hearing a suit under this code is typically considered the date when the intends put its judicial mind in the arguments presented in the pleadings and documents submitted in support of them and for framing the issues to be resolved in the suit.” It can never be earlier than the date fixed for the preliminary examination of parties and settlement issues.

Role of Order X & Order XIV CPC

Order X Rule 1 provides for the court at the first hearing to ascertain from every party to the suit, either themselves or through their pleader, whether they admit or deny such alleged facts of the case as made in their complaint or in the written statement, if any, of the opposite party. If the court wants, they can use this power very smartly to move forward with the case more diligently and speedily without wasting any time.

Order XIV Rule 1 talks about the framing of issues; issues are those facts or material propositions of law that are accepted by one and denied by the other.

The material proposition of law is that the plaintiff has the right to sue and the defendant has to show the defence against such an alleged right. Every material proposition of law or fact presented by one person and denied by the other should be part of the subject matter of a distinct issue.

Background of Order XV CPC

The lawsuit was successfully filed, and the plaintiff presents the claims on which he has presented the lawsuit on which the first hearing of that suit is called.

In the case of Arjun Khiamal Makhijani Etc vs. Jamnadas C. Tuliani & Ors. Etc. (1989) ,the first day of the hearing would be when the court, by applying its judicial mind, either decides to move forward or listens to argue the case further.

Order XV deals with cases where a court can pronounce a judgement at the first hearing of the case. The cases that fall under that category are as follows:

Rule 1: When parties are not at issues

Talks about parties contesting the suit at the first hearing appear to have no issues on any question of law or fact; the court, as deems fit, can pronounce the judgement at the same time.

In the case of Desai Kedar vs. Huzurabad Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. (1994)   the court held at the first hearing that there is no issue that can be raised on any factual or legal issue, and the court is competent and qualified to pronounce the judgement at once as per Order 15 Rule1. The parties are not required to follow the procedure laid down in Order 20. In this case, no legitimate ground has been given to the court, where the court should point to the investigation of the statute. The court has the power to pronounce the judgement as per Order 15 Rule 1. In such a scenario, the way out given in Order 20 cannot be used by such contesting parties.

Rule 2: When there is more than one defendant

In a civil lawsuit involving multiple defendants, the court holds the authority to deliver judgment against a specific defendant under Order 15 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This rule becomes applicable when one or more defendants do not contest the factual and legal aspects of the case. The court can then pass judgment against that particular non-disputing defendant without proceeding with a full trial.

The rationale behind Order 15 Rule 2 is to expedite the legal process and prevent unnecessary delays in resolving the dispute. When a defendant accepts the facts and law of the suit, it indicates their agreement with the plaintiff’s claims. In such situations, the court can render judgment without delving into a lengthy trial, thereby saving time and resources.

The court’s power under Order 15 Rule 2 is subject to certain conditions. Firstly, the defendant must expressly admit to the facts and the applicable law. A mere statement of non-contest or failure to appear in court is insufficient to invoke Rule 2. The court must be satisfied that the defendant’s admission is voluntary, informed, and unequivocal.

Secondly, the court has the discretion to decide whether or not to apply Order 15 Rule 2. The rule is not mandatory but rather an enabling provision. The court may consider factors such as the complexity of the case, the number of defendants, and the potential impact of the judgment on other parties involved.

It is important to note that Order 15 Rule 2 does not apply to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff has no dispute with the facts and law, they cannot seek judgment against themselves. The rule is exclusively meant for defendants who are in agreement with the plaintiff’s claims.

In summary, Order 15 Rule 2 provides an efficient mechanism for the court to dispose of a case where one or more defendants do not contest the facts and law. It enables the court to pronounce judgment against such defendants without a full trial, thereby expediting the legal process and avoiding unnecessary delays.

And on such delivery of judgement shall be followed by a decree.

The suit then would proceed against other such non-claiming defendants because the court, if it finds that each side fails to provide the facts for no legal reason, the court will at that time, without further consideration or if it feels appropriate, postpone the case to provide the evidence sufficient to decide those matters after framing and documentation problems.

Rule 3: Parties at issue

The parties contesting are at issue on some question of law or fact, and such issues have been framed by the court, which is satisfied that no further arguments and evidence would be produced by the parties and that the result of the proceedings immediately is no injustice, the court can decide those issues and, when the findings are sufficient for Rule 3 of this Order, may decide the case. The summons may also be issued for the settlement of issues or for the final disposal of the suit.

Proviso: that where the summons has been issued for the settlement only, the parties or their pleaders are present and none of them objects.

In such cases, if the party fails to provide sufficient documents or pieces of evidence on which they rely, then the suit can be disposed of by the pronouncement of judgement by the court.

Rule 4: Not sufficient pieces of evidences

The party or its pleader makes certain admissions of facts that are sufficient to dispose of the case. At the first stage of hearing, if the facts adduced by the party are sufficient to adjudicate that case and no further evidence can be given against that fact disproving it, the court has the power to pronounce the judgement on that fact. If the court finds that fact non-sufficient or without any legal stand on that fact, the court gives time to prove the same.

Rule 5: Issues framed

After framing the issues, the court is fully convinced and satisfied that no additional arguments or evidence is needed. After listening to all the arguments and examining the evidence provided by each of the parties, the court framed the issue and found that no further facts or evidence in relation to the suit could be presented. The court can move forward with pronouncing its judgement on issues such as framed.

Landmark cases for disposal of a suit at the first hearing under CPC

In the realm of civil litigation, the concept of landmark cases holds immense significance. These cases set precedents and shape the future course of legal proceedings. In the context of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India, there are several landmark cases that have significantly contributed to the interpretation and application of the provisions related to the disposal of suits at the first hearing.

State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Nooh

The case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Nooh, decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1958, stands as a significant landmark in Indian jurisprudence. This case established the crucial principle that a suit can be disposed of at the first hearing itself. This principle applies when the court, after careful examination, is satisfied that there is no genuine triable issue and that the suit is suitable for summary dismissal.

The court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Nooh stemmed from the need to ensure efficient and expeditious disposal of cases, thereby addressing the issue of unnecessary delays often encountered in the judicial process. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides the legal framework for such a summary dismissal. According to this rule, a court may dismiss a suit at the first hearing if it appears that the suit is barred by any law, is otherwise not maintainable, or that the allegations in the complaint are so vague or uncertain that no specific relief can be granted.

In the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Nooh case, the court emphasised the importance of avoiding unnecessary delays in the administration of justice. The court recognised that protracted litigation can not only be frustrating and costly for the parties involved but can also undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary. By allowing for summary dismissal in appropriate cases, the court aimed to strike a balance between the need for fair and thorough adjudication and the need for efficient disposal of cases.

The principle established in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Nooh has had a lasting impact on the Indian legal system. It has provided courts with a valuable tool to streamline the litigation process and prevent frivolous or unmeritorious suits from clogging the judicial system. However, it is important to note that the power of summary dismissal must be exercised judiciously and with due regard to the principles of natural justice. Courts must ensure that a proper opportunity is given to the parties to present their respective cases before a decision is reached.

Smt. Sushila Devi vs. Shri Ved Parkash Marwaha

The case of Smt. Sushila Devi v. Shri Ved Parkash Marwaha, decided by the Delhi High Court in 1981, stands as a landmark precedent in Indian civil procedure. This case significantly contributed to the interpretation and application of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) concerning the dismissal of suits at the first hearing.

In this pivotal ruling, the Delhi High Court held that a suit could be dismissed at the first hearing if the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The court emphasised that Order VII Rule 11 was not intended to serve as a means for conducting fishing inquiries or allowing the plaintiff to engage in a voyage of discovery. The court reasoned that the purpose of the rule was to prevent the abuse of process and ensure the efficient administration of justice.

The court observed that in order to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must set out a clear and concise statement of material facts, supported by evidence, that, if believed, would entitle the plaintiff to the reliefs sought. The court further clarified that the standard of proof required at this stage was not as stringent as that required for a full trial but was sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success.

The decision in Smt. Sushila Devi vs. Shri Ved Parkash Marwaha has had a profound impact on civil litigation in India. It has been cited and followed by numerous courts and tribunals in subsequent cases, solidifying the principle that suits can be dismissed at the first hearing if the plaintiff fails to present a credible prima facie case.

This landmark ruling underscores the importance of carefully drafting pleadings and presenting a well-supported case from the outset. It also highlights the need for courts to exercise their discretion judiciously in determining whether a suit should be dismissed at the first hearing, balancing the interests of justice and the efficient administration of the legal system.

Shamsher Bahadur Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Shamsher Bahadur Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided in 1975, reaffirmed and emphasised a fundamental principle established in the earlier case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Nooh. This principle underscores the importance of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a crucial provision that empowers courts to dismiss a suit or an appeal if the plaintiff or appellant fails to take the necessary steps to prosecute the case diligently. The court in Shamsher Bahadur Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh held that Order VII Rule 11 is a valuable tool that enables courts to dispose of cases expeditiously and prevent the abuse of the judicial process.

The court recognised that litigation can be a time-consuming and resource-intensive process, and it is essential to ensure that cases are not unduly prolonged or unnecessarily delayed. Order VII Rule 11 serves as a check against frivolous or vexatious litigation by allowing courts to dismiss cases where the parties fail to demonstrate a genuine interest in pursuing the matter.

The court further emphasised that the power to dismiss under Order VII Rule 11 should be exercised judiciously and with caution. Courts must consider all relevant factors, including the reasons for the delay, the conduct of the parties, and the merits of the case, before arriving at a decision. The court also acknowledged that the right to a fair hearing is a fundamental principle of justice, and courts must balance this right with the need for efficient disposal of cases.

By reiterating the principle laid down in the State of Uttar Pradesh vS. Mohammad Nooh case, the Supreme Court in Shamsher Bahadur Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reinforced the importance of Order VII Rule 11 in ensuring the smooth functioning of the judicial system. This provision serves as a deterrent against dilatory tactics and promotes the timely resolution of disputes, ensuring that justice is not delayed or denied due to unnecessary delays.

These landmark cases have significantly contributed to the jurisprudence of the disposal of suits at the first hearing under the CPC. They have clarified the scope and ambit of Order VII Rule 11 and have provided valuable guidance to the courts in dealing with such cases. These cases serve as precedents and continue to be cited by courts in subsequent cases involving the disposal of suits at the first hearing.

Conclusion

The article aims to make you aware that the civil court has one of the hidden powers to try and dispose of the suit at the first stage of hearing as per Order 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This provides certain conditions on which the court uses this power to dispose of the suit at the first stage of hearing rather than dragging it to years or months, as well as reducing the pile of cases and doing the speedy disposal of the suit as needed to provide justice to the aggrieved and compensation of the damages it accrues from the defendant. 

References

• C.K. Takwani, Code of Civil Procedure and Limitation Act, 1963 (9th ed. 2021).
• Vol. 4, S.K. Mulla, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (19th ed. 2017).
• Majumdar, P.K. and Kataria, R.P., Commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Universal, Delhi, (1998).
• Siraj Ahmad v. Prema Nath 1993 4 SCC 406: AIR 1993 SC2525.
• Arjun Khaimal Makhijani v. Jamnadas C. Tuliani (1989) 4 SCC 612.
• Desi Kedari Vs. Huzurabad Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd., AIR 1994 AP 301.