Report No. 163

Amendment of Orders

2.12. Clause 14 or the Amendment Bill proposing to amend sub-rule (1) of rule 1 of Order IV and proposing to insert sub-rule (3) in rule 1 of Order IV.-

The amendment to sub-rule (1) is formal in nature and is not opposed. But, so far as the proposal to insert sub-rule (3) is concerned, it was apprehended by many of the participants in the various conferences that such a rule may lead to innumerable complications. Sub-rule (1) of rule 1 of Order IV provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting plaint to the court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf while sub-rule (2) says that every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, so far as they are applicable.

The proposed sub-rule (3) says that a plaint shall not be deemed to have been duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rules (1) and (2). The proposed rule would give room for objection by the defendant that the plaint does not conform to one or the other requirements of Order VI or Order VII, which may contribute to delaying the suits further.

Moreover, from the stand point of limitation also, the proposed sub-rule (3) may give rise to considerable difficulty. The existing legal position is that the date of presentation of plaint is treated as date of filing of suit. This rule may become inapplicable, if the proposed sub-rule (3) is inserted. A time-limit could be indicated within which all defects in and objections to presentation of plaint are to be rectified.

The Law Commission, therefore, recommends that the proposed sub-rule (3) may be dropped and instead a time-limit may be prescribed within which all defects in and objections to the presentation of plaint have to be rectified. An outer time-limit of 30 days would appear appropriate.