Introduction of decree

In Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the term “Decree” has a great importance as it represents the formal adjudication of a Court of law which finally determines the rights and liabilities of the parties in the suit. The Decree {defined under Section 2(2)} of the Code is not just a simple order passed by a Court. It is the final word of the Court in a suit. Whether it is preliminary, final, or composite, it plays a crucial role in the civil litigation in India.

Decree: Meaning

Decree means “an official order that has the force of law.”

Oxford dictionary[1] define the term decree as “an official order from a leader or a government that becomes the law.” and “a decision that is made in Court.”

According to Cambridge dictionaries[2], a decree is “a judgement made in Court of law” and “an official statement that something must happen, made by a leader, government, etc.”

In law a “decree” is defined as “a decision that is made in Court of law.” However, Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called “Code”) defines the term “decree” as:

Decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regards to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint (Order 7 Rule 11) and the determination of any question within [xxx] section 144, but shall not include –

(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or

(b) any order of dismissal for default.

Thus, a “decree” means “a general or formal expression of an adjudication of Court of law, which conclusively decide the rights and liabilities of parties to the suit, with regard to all or any of the matters in the controversy in the suit.”

A decree can be in three forms. It can be either preliminary, final, or partly preliminary or partly final. Explanation of Section 2(2) of the Code provided that:

Explanation: A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.

Essential elements of a Decree

For an order to be considered as a decree, the following elements must be present;

i. There must be a suit;

ii. There must be adjudication on this suit;

iii. This adjudication must have determined the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matter in controversy in the suit;

iv. Such determination must be of a conclusively in nature;

v. There must be a formal expression of such adjudication.

All of these requirements must be interpreted in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which specify the stages at which a decree may be drawn up. Not every finding of the Court constitutes a decree despite the finding conclusively determine the rights of parties on certain issues in the suit.

Let’s discuss all the requirements of a decree in details:

I. Suit

A “suit” generally, mean “a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint.”[3]

In the case of Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators of the Dehra Dun-Mussoori Electric Tramways Co. Ltd.[4], the privy council said that:

“the word suit ordinarily means and apart from some context must be taken to mean, a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint.”

This definition of suit emphasized that a suit is a formal civil legal proceeding initiated by the filing of a plaint. Therefore, every suit is initiated by the presentation of a plaint[5] and when there is no civil suit, there is no decree.[6]

[Note: a plaint is the written statement of the plaintiff’s claim.]

The term “suit” is not define in the Code. It is a generic term which includes all proceedings which is initiated by a party for the enforcement of his rights.

Section 2(2) of the Code does not include execution proceedings and rejection of an application for leave to sue as an Indigent person. However, under certain enactments, specific provisions have been made to treat certain applications as suits. For example:

Proceedings under;

• • The Hindu Marriage Act,
  • The Indian Succession Act,
  • The Land Acquisition Act, and
  • The Arbitration Act, etc.

are the statutory suits and the decisions given thereunder are, therefore is a decree.

In Diwan Bros. v. Central Bank of India[7], it was held that “a decision of a tribunal, even though described as “decree” under the Act is a decree passed by a tribunal and not by a Court covered by Section 2(2).”

II. Adjudication

For a decision of a Court to become a decree, there must be an adjudication in the suit. An Adjudication refers to “the legal procedure by which a judge examines the evidence and arguments presented before him by the parties in dispute and makes a formal decision or judgement.” In simple words, and adjudication refers to “judicial determination of the matter in dispute.”

The adjudication must determine the rights and liabilities of the parties with regard to all or any of the matter in controversy in a suit. It is also necessary that the determination must be of a conclusive nature.

In Madan Naik v. Hansubala Devi[8], the Court provided that “if there is no judicial determination of any matter in dispute, it is not a decree.”

Therefore,

• • A decision on a matter of an administrative nature;
  • An order dismissing a suit for default of appearance of parties; or
  • An appeal for want of prosecution

cannot be termed as a decree in as much as it does not judicially deal with the matter in dispute.

In Deep Chand v. Land Acquisition Officer[9], the Court provided that “the judicial determination or adjudication must be made by a Court or by an officer of the Court. Therefore, if an order passed by an officer who is not a Court is not a decree.”

III. Rights of parties to the suit

One of the important condition for rendering a judgement to be decree within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Code is that there must be an adjudication of the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit.

• The term “rights” refer to only substantive rights of the parties to the suit and not the procedural rights of the parties.[12] The rights of parties inter se relating to status, limitation, jurisdiction, frame of suit, accounts, etc. are considered to be “rights of the parties” under section 2(2) but an order or dismissal of a suit for default of appearance, or an order dismissing an application for execution for non-prosecution, or an order refusing leave to sue in forma pauperis i.e., in the character of a pauper, or a mere right to sue, are not decree as they do not determine the rights of the parties.
• The term “parties” means parties to the suit i.e., the plaintiff and the defendant.[13] Thus, an order on an application by a third party, who is a stranger to the suit, is not a decree. In Interpleader suits, the contesting defendants will be deemed to be parties to the suit.
• The expression “matters on controversy” refers to the subject-matter of the suit with reference to which relief is sought.[14] It should not be understood that the “matter in controversy” solely relates to the “merits of the case”. It would also cover questions relating to the character and status of party suing, to the jurisdiction of the Court, to the maintainability of the suit and to the preliminary matters which necessitate and adjudication before a suit is enquired into. Interlocutory orders on matters of procedure which do not decide the substantive rights of the parties are not decrees. Similarly, the proceedings preliminary to the institution of a suit will not be included in the definition. The expression matter in controversy includes matters which though they are common ground must have been actually decided if any question had arisen and which are the foundation of the whole determination.[15]

IV. Determination which shall be conclusive

The determination of the rights involved in the matter in controversy or dispute shall be conclusive in nature.[16] The expression “matters in controversy” refers to the subject-matter of the suit with respect to which any relief is sought and such matter which has been brought up for adjudication before the Court by the pleading. Thus, and interlocutory order which does not decide the rights of the parties finally is not a decree, e.g., an order refusing an adjournment, or an order striking out defence of a tenant under the relevant Rent Act, or an order passed by the appellate Court deciding some issues and remitting other issues to the trial Court for determination under Order 41 Rule 23 etc. are not a decree because they do not decide rights of the parties conclusively. The crucial point which requires to be decided in such a case is whether the decision is final and conclusive in essence and substance. If it is final, it is a decree, and if it is not final, it is not a decree.[17]

In Shankar Aggarwal v. Shankarlal Poddar[18], the Supreme Court held that “an interlocutory order which does not finally decide the rights of the parties is not a decree.” the Court observed that “for an adjudication to be considered a decree, it must conclusively determine the rights of the parties regarding the matters in controversy.”

In Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India[19], the Supreme Court reiterated that “interlocutory orders, which do not decide the substantive rights of the parties finally, cannot be considered decrees.” This case also clarified the distinction between decrees and orders.

In Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd.[20], the Supreme Court explained that an interlocutory order made during the pendency of a suit, which does not determine the substantive rights of the parties, is not a decree. the Court emphasized that “only those decisions that are finally adjudicated the rights of the parties can be classified as decrees.”

In M/S Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.[21], the Court held that “an order which does not conclusively determine the rights of the parties in the suit, and is made during the interim proceedings, is not a decree but an interlocutory order.”

In Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal[22], the Supreme Court discussed the nature of interlocutory orders and held that “such orders, which are temporary and do not decide the rights of the parties finally, are not decrees under Section 2(2) of the Code.”

V. Formal expression

There must be a formal expression of the adjudication by the Court. The formal expression must be on purpose and given in the manner as provided by law. As the decree follows the judgement it must be drawn separately.[23] Thus, if a decree is not formally drawn up in terms of the judgement, no appeal lies from that judgement. Bu the decree need not be in a particular form.

The formal expression must be deliberate and given in the manner prescribed by law. The decree follows the judgement and must be drawn up separately. Thus, if a decree is not formally drawn up in terms of the judgement, no appeal lies from that judgement. But, the decree need not be in a particular form. Thus, a mis-description of a decision as an order which amounts to a decree does not make it less than a decree.

[Note: A decree is said to be nullity if it is passed by a Court having no inherent jurisdiction. Merely because a Court erroneously passed a decree or there is an error while passing the decree, the decree cannot be called a nullity. The decree to be called a nullity is to be understood in the sense that it is ultra vires the powers of the Court passing the decree and not merely voidable decree.[24]]

List of decision which are decrees and which are not decrees

Decision which are “decrees”	Decision which are not “decrees”
Dismissal of appeal as time barred.	Dismissal of appeal for default.
Dismissal of suit or appeal for want of evidence or proof.	Dismissal of suit under Order 23 Rule 1.
Order holding that there is no cause of action	Order directing assessment of mesne profits.
Order holding appeal not maintainable.	Order of remand.
Order holding that the right to sue does not survive.	Order holding an application to be maintainable.
Order refusing one of several reliefs.	Order refusing to set aside sale.
Order of abetment of suit.	Order granting or refusing interim relief.
Granting or refusing to grant costs or instalment.	Appointment of commissioner to take accounts.
Rejection of plaint for non-payment of Court fees.	Return of plaint for presentation to proper Court.
Modification of scheme under Section 92 of the Code.	Rejection of application for condonation of delay.

 

Classes of decree

There are mainly 3 kinds of decree: (i) Preliminary decree, (ii) Final decree, (iii) Partly preliminary and partly final decree. It shall be deemed to include:

(i) the rejection of a plaint; and

(ii) the determination of any question within Section 144.

However, it shall not include:

(i) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order; or

(ii) any order for dismissal for default.

I. Preliminary decree

A preliminary decree is a kind of decree issued by a Civil Court under CPC which decided the rights of the parties on some aspects of the matter in controversy, but does not completely dispose of the suit.

In simple words, a decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of.

It is an interim decree that precedes the final decree and sets the stage for further proceedings to resolve remaining issues. It is passed in those cases in which the Court has first to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and has then to stay its hands for the time being, until it is in a position to pass a final decree in the suit. In other words, a preliminary decree is only a stage in the working out the rights of the parties which are to be finally adjudicated by a final decree.[25] Till then the suit continues.[26]

In Shankar v. Chandrakant[27], the Supreme Court stated:

“A preliminary decree is one which declares the rights and liabilities of the parties leaving the actual result to be worked out in further proceedings. Then, as a result of the further inquiries, conducted pursuant to the preliminary decree, the rights of the parties are fully determined and a decree is passed in accordance with such determination which is final. Both the decrees are in the same suit. A final decree may be said to become final in two ways:

(i) when the time for appeal has expired without any appeal being filed against the preliminary decree or the matter has been decided by the Highest Court.

(ii) when as regards the Court passing the decree, the same stands completely disposed of.

It is in the latter sense that the word “decree” is used in Section 2(2) of the Code.”

In Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy[28], the Court provided that “an adjudication that finally decides the right of parties but does not completely dispose of the suit is a preliminary decree.”

A preliminary decree determines the rights and liabilities of the parties with regards to all or any of the matter in controversy in the suit, but, it does not completely dispose of the suit. Therefore, a decree is preliminary when the adjudication of a Court decides the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matter in controversy in suit but does not completely dispose of the suit.

In the case of Parvathamma v. Muniyappa[29], the Court said that “in preliminary decree, certain rights are conclusively determined and unless the preliminary decree is challenged in appeal, the rights so determined become final and conclusive and cannot be questioned in the final decree.”

Explanation of Section 2(2) of the Code also provided that, “a decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of.”

Therefore, a preliminary decree is passed in those cases in which proceedings in a suit are to be carried out in two stages, (i) when the rights of the parties to the suit are to be adjudicated and (ii) the stage when those rights of the parties are implemented or given effect to. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide for passing preliminary decree in the following cases:

(a) Suit for possession and mesne profits (Or. XX, R. 12)

(b) Administration suit (Or. XX R. 13)

(c) Suit for pre-emption (Or. XX R. 14)

(d) Suit for dissolution of partnership firm (Or. XX R. 15)

(e) Suit for accounts between principal and agent (Or. XX, R. 16)

(f) Suit for partition and separate possession (Or. XX R. 18)

(g) Suit for foreclosure and Mortgage (Or. XXXIV R. 2-3)

(h) Suit for sale of mortgaged property (Or. XXXIV R. 4-5)

(i) Suit for redemption of mortgage (Or. XXXIV R. 7-8)

However, the above list is not exhaustive and a Court may pass a preliminary decree in cases not expressly provided for in the Code.[30]

There is a conflict of opinion between different High Courts about whether there can be more than one preliminary decree in a suit?

Generally, there will be one preliminary decree and one final decree in a suit.[31] But, the Supreme Court in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal[32], concluded in regards to the partition suit that “there is nothing in the Code which prohibits the Court from passing of more than one preliminary decree, if circumstances justify the same and it may be necessary to do so for justice, but what we are saying must be confined to partition suits.”

In Subbaiya Pandaram v. Mohammad Mustapha Maracayar[33], the Privy Council said that “the Code does not preclude the passing of more than one preliminary decree in a suit if circumstances necessitate it.”

In Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy[34], the Supreme Court observed that “in suits for partition and separate possession, the Court may pass a preliminary decree determining the shares of the parties, and subsequently, another preliminary decree may be passed regarding other aspects such as mesne profits.”

In Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande[35], the Supreme Court ruled that “in a suit for partition, the Court can pass a preliminary decree determining the shares of the parties and a second preliminary decree for partitioning the properties as per the shares determined earlier.”

In Narayanan v. Laxmi Narayanan[36], the Supreme Court reiterated that “more than one preliminary decree can be passed in a suit if the circumstances of the case so require, particularly in complex suits involving partition, administration, or accounting.

Features of preliminary decree

There are two main features of preliminary decree:

(i) Interim nature: In a suit, a preliminary decree is not a final order of the Court. It only addresses certain important issues which needs to be settled before the suit can be completely disposed of.

(ii) Decisive nature: A preliminary decree is decisive in nature in respect to the certain rights and liabilities which is settled by it. These are those rights and liabilities which needs to be settled first, while leaving the other issues open for further adjudication.

Provisions related to preliminary decree under the Code

(i)  Section 2(2) of the Code: Section 2(2) of the Code defines a decree which includes preliminary and final decree.

(ii) Order XX, Rule 10 of the Code: Order XX, Rule 10 of the Code specifically provides for decrees in suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share.

Examples of preliminary decree

(i) Partition suits: In a suit, in which the matter is related to partition of property, the Court may pass a preliminary decree declaring every party’s rights and shares. Subsequently, a final decree can be passed, which finally determines the rights and shares of the parties.

In Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy[38], the Supreme Court held that “a preliminary decree in a partition suit declaring the shares of the parties does not dispose of the suit completely but sets the stage for further proceedings leading to a final decree.”

(ii) Mortgage suits: In mortgage foreclosure suits, the Court may issue a preliminary decree and order the mortgagor to pay the due amount within a specified period of time, failing which a final decree for foreclosure or sale of mortgaged property is issued.

In Raghunath Singh v. Sunder Singh[39], the Court issues a preliminary decree for the redemption of mortgage, ordering the mortgagor to pay the due amount within a specified period, failing which a final decree for foreclosure was issued.

(iii) Suits for accounts: In suits where accounts need to be taken between parties (such as partnership disputes), the Court may pass a preliminary decree directing the taking of accounts and subsequently pass a final decree based on the findings.

In Chandrani v. Kamal Rani[40], the Court issues a preliminary decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts, directing that accounts be taken between the partners before a final decree based on the findings.

II. Final decree

A decree is said to be final when it completely disposes of the suit and finally settles all the questions in controversy between the parties and nothing further remains to be decided thereafter. While a preliminary decree ascertains what is to be done, the final decree states the result achieved by means of the preliminary decree. The final decree merely carries into fulfilment of the preliminary decree.[41]

The preliminary decree is not dependent on the final one, but the latter is really dependent on and subordinate to the former, which is not extinguished by the passing of the final decree. Thus, in a partition suit, the preliminary decree declares the rights of the parties and the final decree divides the properties in terms of the right so declared, thereby completely disposing of the suit. In a suit for recovery of money, if the amount found due to the decree-holder is declared and the manner in which the amount is to be paid has also been laid down, the decree is final decree.

A decree may be said to be final in two ways:

(a) when within the prescribed period of time, no appeal is filed against the decree or the matter has been decided by the decree of the Highest Court;[42]

(b) when the decree, so far as regards the Court passing it completely disposes of the suit.[43]

It is in the latter sense that the expression “final decree” is used in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

In Parvathamma v. A. Muniyappa[44], it was provided that “where an appeal against a preliminary decree is not filed, the rights determined therein become final and conclusive and the same cannot be questioned in the final decree.”

In Gulusam Bivi v. Ahamadasa Rowther[45], the High Court of Madras, referring to Rules 12 and 18 of Order 20 of the Code, stated:

“Neither rule contemplates more than one preliminary decree and one final decree in a suit. In fact, the Code nowhere contemplates more than one final decree in a suit. To have two final decree and to call the first one a final decree will be really a misnomer as it will not be final.”

In Kasi v. Ramanathan Chettiar[46], the same Court noted that there was a divergence of opinion whether there could be more than one preliminary and also more than one final decree in a suit. Then considering the question in detail and describing the observation in Gulusam Bivi as orbiter dicta, the Court observed that “there could be more than one preliminary decree and more than one final decree in a suit.”

Patanjali Sastri, J. (as he then was) rightly concluded the matter thus:

“(T)he question is not whether the Code allows more than one preliminary decree or one final decree to be made, but whether the Code contains a prohibition against the Court in a proper case passing more than one such decree.”

Finally, in Shankar v. Chandrakant[47], the Supreme Court provided:

“It is settled law that more than one final decree can be passed.”

Features of final decree

There are two main features of final decree:

(i) Conclusiveness: A final decree settles all the issues raised in the suit, leaving no further questions to be decided.

(ii) Finality: The final decree brings the litigation to an end. It disposes of the entire suit, unlike a preliminary decree which only settle some questions or aspects of the suit.

Provisions related to preliminary decree under the Code

(i) Section 2(2) of the Code: Section 2(2) of the Code defines a decree which includes preliminary and final decree.

(ii) Order 20 of the Code: Order 20 of the Code provides detailed rules regarding judgements and decrees, including the passing of preliminary and final decrees.

Examples of final decree

(i) Partition suits: After passing a preliminary decree declaring equal shares of co-owners, the Court issues a final decree in which the property was actually partitioned and separate possession was granted to each party.

In Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy[48], the final decree was passed based on the commissioner’s report dividing the property physically among the co-sharers.

(ii) Mortgage suits: When the mortgagor failed to pay the amount specified in the preliminary decree, the Court passed a final decree for foreclosure, thereby transferring absolute ownership of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee.

In Raghunath Singh v. Sunder Singh[49], after non-payment, the Court ordered final foreclosure, extinguishing the mortgagor’s right of redemption.

III. Partly preliminary and partly final decree (also known as composite decree)  

Preliminary decree declares the rights and liabilities of the parties. However, in a given case a decree may be both preliminary and final. There can be more than one final decree. A decree may be partly preliminary and partly final. Such a “composite decree” is passed in certain cases viz., in a suit for possession of land and mesne profits, the Court orders possession of the land in suit in favour of the plaintiff, and directs an enquiry into profits. The first part of the decree is final as it directs delivery of possession to the plaintiff, while the second part is preliminary in as much as it direct an enquiry as to mesne profits.[50]

Order XX, Rule 18 of the Code provides the procedure for passing preliminary and final decrees in partition suits. It emphasizes that the Court may pass a decree which is partly preliminary and partly final.

In Ramnarayan v. Mt. Bhagwan Devi[51], the Supreme Court held that “a decree can be partly preliminary and partly final, especially in those cases in which some issues can be conclusively decided while the other issues require further proceedings.”

In Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath[52], the Court recognized that “in certain cases, which involves complex property matters, it might be necessary to pass a decree that is partly preliminary and partly final to ensure a just and comprehensive resolution of all issues.”

Features of partly preliminary and partly final decree

There are two main features of preliminary decree:

(i) Final determination of some issues: Certain aspects of the case are resolved conclusively through partly preliminary and partly final decree by making that part of the decree final and executable.

(ii) Preliminary determination of other issues: Other remaining aspects of the Case are identified for further inquiry or adjudication, which makes that part of the decree preliminary and requiring additional judicial process reaching a final order.

Provisions related to partly preliminary and partly final decree under the Code

Order XX, Rule 18 under the Code pertains to the passing of preliminary and final decrees in partition suits by highlighting that the Court may pass a decree that is partly preliminary and partly final.

Examples of partly preliminary and partly final decree

(i) Partition suits: In a partition suit the decree declare the shares of all the parties. (Preliminary decree) further, the Court order the sale of some of specific properties of their division is not possible. (Final decree).

(ii) Mortgage suits: In the mortgage suit the decree may order an accounting to determine the amount due. (Preliminary decree) and further it may confirm the mortgagee’s rights to foreclosure on the property if the amount is not paid. (final decree)

Conclusion

The concept of “decree” under Section 2(2) of the Code is an important concept of civil justice system in India which serves as the formal culmination of judicial adjudication in a civil suit. In essence, a decree is the formal and conclusive determination of the rights of parties, and it can be either preliminary, final or partly preliminary and partly final. Not every order of the Court amounts to a decree. Only those orders which meet all the essential criteria prescribed by law are considered as decree.

 

Multiple Choice Questions

1. What is essential for a decision of the Court to become a decree?

a. The suit must be dismissed for default

b. The decision must be administrative in nature

c. There must be an adjudication determining rights and liabilities

d. The order must be passed by a government officer

2. The rejection of an application to sue as an indigent person is:

a. Considered a decree under Section 2(2) of CPC

b. Automatically considered a suit under CPC

c. Always a decree if made in Civil Court

d. Not a decree under Section 2(2) of CPC

3. Which of the following cannot be termed as a decree?

a. A judgement determining the rights of the parties

b. A dismissal of suit for default of appearance

c. A conclusive judgement resolving a dispute

d. An order passed by a judge after examining evidence

4. What does the term “adjudication” primarily mean in law?

a. Judicial determination of a matter in dispute

b. Conducting police investigation

c. Issuing notice to the parties to the suit

d. Filing an appeal in a Court

5. An order under Order IX Rule 8 (dismissal for non-appearance) of the Code of Civil Procedure is:

a. A decree

b. Not a decree

c. An order

d. Not an order

6. Which of the following is the most appropriate test to determine whether an order is a decree?

a. Whether it is appealable

b. Whether it involves an interim relief

c. Whether it conclusively determines the rights of the parties

d. Whether it has been passed by a tribunal

7. The expression “matter in controversy” refers to:

a. Execution-related issues

b. Procedural disputed raised during trial

c. Only final relief claimed in the suit

d. All questions including jurisdiction, status, and preliminary matters

8. Which of the following would not be treated as “rights of parties” under Section 2(2) of the Code?

a. Right to maintenance

b. Right to partition of joint property

c. Right to adjournment

d. Right to file a suit

9. In which of the following case the Supreme Court held that “an interlocutory order which does not finally decide the rights of the parties is not a decree”?

a. Shankar Aggarwal v. ShankarLal Poddar

b. Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal

c. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India

d. Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors Pvt. Ltd.

10. In which of the following case the Court clearly explained that “only decisions that finally adjudicate the rights of the parties can be classified as decrees”?

a. Shankar Aggarwal v. ShankarLal Poddar

b. Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal

c. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India

d. Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors Pvt. Ltd.

11. In Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court clarified that:

a. If an Interim order is made by a judge it is a decree

b. Interlocutory orders not deciding rights are not decrees

c. All orders passed in suits are decrees

d. Every order passed during appeal is a decree

12. In M/S Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., what was the legal position which is reiterated?

a. Order for temporary injunction is a decree under CPC

b. Every order made in proceedings in a decree under the Code

c. Interim orders not deciding rights finally are not decrees under the Code

d. Orders of appellate court are always decrees

13. Which landmark case of CPC clearly differentiate between interlocutory orders and decrees?

a. K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi

b. Lal Chand v. Radha Kishan

c. State of U.P. v. Vijay Anand Maharaj

d. Shankar Aggarwal v. Shankar Lal Poddar

14. Can a final decree be passed without a preliminary decree?

a. Yes, Always

b. Never

c. Only if the suit does not require staged adjudication

d. Only in Criminal cases

Mains Questions

Question: Define a decree under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with its essential elements and explain its kinds with the help of case laws, if any.

Question: Distinguish between Preliminary Decree and Final Decree. support your answer with case laws. if any.

Question: What is a Composite Decree. illustrate with examples and case laws. 

Question: Is rejection of an application for condonation of delay a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? Explain and support your answer with case laws.

Question: Provide a comparative chart of decisions which amounts to a decree and which do not amounts to a decree.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For answers of the above questions: 

Contact us directly: https://wa.me/918882113418

[Note: Your number will not be shared. I will only use it to send you the answers you request.]

Do follow for more judiciary content:

Website: https://lawgiverr.com/

WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbB9Lmk90x2rSYEES00a

Also read: 

Structure of CPC: https://lawgiverr.com/structure-of-cpc-1908-sections-orders-procedural-flow/

Extent and applicability of CPC: https://lawgiverr.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-the-extent-and-applicability-of-code-of-civil-procedure-1908/

Substantive law vs Procedural law: https://lawgiverr.com/substantive-law-vs-procedural-law/

 

References

[1] Decree, Oxford dictionaries, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/decree_1?q=decree (last visited 07/07/2025).

[2] Decree, Cambridge dictionaries, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decree (last visited 07/07/2025).

[3] Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators of The Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd., (1932-33) 60 IA 13; see also, Pandurang Ramchandra v. Shantibai Ramchandra, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 627 at p. 639; Usmanali Khan v. Sagar Mal, AIR 1965 SC 1798 at p. 1800; Secy. to Govt. Of Orissa Sarbeswar Rout, (1989) 4 SCC 578 at p. 581.

[4] (1932-33) 60 IA 13.

[5] Jagdish Sahai v. Surjan Singh Pal, AIR 1977 All 554.

[6] Minakshi v. Subranrayanana, 14 IA 160.

[7] (1976) 3 SCC 800 at pp. 807-08; AIR 1976 SC 1503 at p. 1518.

[8] (1983) 3 SCC 15.

[9] (1994) 4 SCC 9.

[10] AIR 1956 SC 367.

[11] AIR 1970 SC 1475.

[12] Dattatraya v. Radhabai, AIR 1921 Bom 220: ILR (1921) 45 Bom 627.

[13] Kanji Hirjibhai v. Jivaraj Dharamshi, (1975) 16 Guj LR 469; Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 992.

[14] Ahmed Musaji Saleji v. Hashim Ibrahim Saleji, (1914-15) 42 IA 91: AIR 1915 PC 116.

[15] See, Ummed Mal v. Kundanmal, AIR 1981 Raj 202.

[16] Narayan Chandra v. Pratirodh Sahini, AIR 1991 Cal 53.

[17] Jethanand & Sons. v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 794; Sukhdeo v. Govinda Hari, AIR 1980 Bom 231; Narayan Chandra v. Pratirodh Sahini, AIR 1991 Cal 53.

[18] AIR 1965 SC 507.

[19] AIR 1960 SC 430.

[20] AIR 1970 SC 406.

[21] AIR 2012 SC 488.

[22] AIR 1967 SC 1470.

[23] Or. 20 Rr. 6, 6-A, 7; see also, Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 (577).

[24] See, Sardar Pritam Singh v. Addl. District Judge, Mathura, 1995 All AJ 971.

[25] Mool Chand v. Director, Consolidation, (1995) 5 SCC 631: AIR 1995 SC 2493; Shankar v. Chandrakant, (1995) 3 SCC 413: AIR 1995 SC 1211; Hasham Abbas v. Usman Abbas, (2007) 2 SCC 355: AIR 2007 SC 1077.

[26] Awadhendra Prasad v. Raghubansmani Prasad, AIR 1979 Pat. 50: 1978 BLJR 835; Paras Nath Rai v. State of Bihar, (2012) 12 SCC 642: (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 518.

[27] (1995) 3 SCC 413 (416).

[28] AIR 1963 SC 993.

[29] AIR 1997 Kant 370: 1997 (4) Kant LJ 95.

[30] Narayanan Thampi v. Lekshmi Narayanana Iyer, AIR 1953 TC 220 at p. 222 (FB); Peary Mohan Mookerjee v. Manohar Mookerjee, 1923 SCC Online Cal 61: (1922-23) 27 CWN 989; Union of India v. Khetra Mohan, AIR 1960 Cal 190 at p. 198; Bhagwan Singh v. Kallo Maula Shah, 1977 MP LJ 583: 1977 Jab LJ 576 (FB).

[31] Baburu Basavayya v. Babburu guravayya, AIR 1951 Mad 938 (FB); Sudarshan Dass v. Ramkripal Dass, AIR 1967 Pat 131; Mallasivam Chettiar v. Ayudayammal, AIR 1958 Mad 462; Kanji Hirjibhai v. Jivaraj Dharamshi, (1975) 16 Guj LR 469; Anandi Devi v. Mahendra Singh, AIR 1997 Pat 7.

[32] AIR 1967 SC 1470: (1967) 3 SCR 153.

[33] AIR 1923 PC 175.

[34] AIR 1963 SC 992.

[35] AIR 1995 SC 1211.

[36] (2022) 4 SCC 67.

[37] Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 992; Mool Chand v. Director, Consolidation (1995) 5 SCC 631; Bikoba Deora Gaikawad v. Hirabai Marutirao Ghorgare, (2008) 8 SCC 198.

[38] AIR 1963 SC 992.

[39] AIR 1965 SC 1364.

[40] AIR 1993 SC 1742.

[41] S. Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande, (1995) 3 SCC 413: AIR 1995 AC 1211.

[42] Parvathamma v. A. Muniyappa, AIR 1997 Kant 370: 1997 (4) Kant LJ 95.

[43] Shankar v. Chandrakant, (1995) 3 SCC 413 at p. 418; Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, (2007) 2 SCC 355.

[44] AIR 1997 Kant 370.

[45] ILR (1918) 42 Mad 296.

[46] 1948 SCC OnLine Mad 289.

[47] (1995) 3 SCC 413 at p. 418; see also, Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, (2007) 2 SCC 355.

[48] AIR 1963 SC 992.

[49] AIR 1929 All 845.

[50] Lucy Kochuvareed v. P. Mariappa Gounder, (1979) 3 SCC 150 at p. 159; see also, State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak, (1953) I SCC 425.

[51] AIR 1957 SC 125.

[52] AIR 1976 SC 2335.