Report No. 139
Urgent need to Amend Order XXI, Rule 92(2), Code of Civil Procedure to Remove an Anomaly which Nullifies the Benevolent Intention of the Legislature and Occasions Injustice to Judgment-debtors Sought to be Benefited
| Contents | |
| Chapter 1 | Introductory |
| 1.1 | A dimension of law which speaks in two inconsistent voices |
| 2. | The perspective of the report |
| 3. | Suggestions already made by the Law Commission and in the judicial decision |
| 4. | Scheme of the report |
| Chapter 2 | Relevant Statutory Provisions |
| 2.1,2. | Genesis of the controversy |
| 3. | Order XXI, rule 92(2), C.P.C |
| 4. | Compliance within time limit mandatory |
| 5. | Article 127, the Limitation Act, 1963 |
| 6. | Reasons for amendment |
| Chapter 3 | Law as it obtains today in the Light of the Judicial Decisions |
| 3.1. | Present position |
| 2. | The Anomaly |
| 3. | Kerala High Court Judgment |
| 4. | Supreme Court Judgment (1986) |
| 5. | Later Supreme Court judgment of 1990, overruling earlier judgment of 1986 |
| 6. | Is the object of amendment of Article 127 in fact served? |
| Chapter 4 | Pressing Need for Amendment with Urgency |
| 4.1. | The compulsive case for amendment |
| 2. | Judicial decisions |
| 3. | Hardship and urgency |
| 4,5. | Recommendation |
