Part 1 – Suits by or Against Government

Order XXVII of CPC deals with suits by or against Government. ‘Government’ includes Central or State Government. As per Rule 1, prior notice of at least two months must be given to Government before filing suit against Government. This enables authorities to scrutinize claim before litigation.

In State of UP v. Nawab Hussain (1977) 2 SCC 816, Supreme Court held notice is mandatory and suit filed without notice is not maintainable. However, notice period can be waived if Government waives the requirement.

As per Rule 5A, when Government undertaking is converted into company, company shall be substituted as party provided cause of action arose after incorporation. Central Government may direct such company to be represented by any officer in such suit.

Order XXVII Rule 5B provides that the court in which a suit is pending against the Government may appoint counsel for Government at government expense if no appearance is made on their behalf. This prevents cases being decided against government ex-parte.

Part 2 – Suits by Indigent Persons

Order XXXIII deals with suits by indigent persons, meaning persons unable to pay court fees due to poverty. As per Rule 1, where plaintiff has not meant to pay prescribed fees, court has discretion to allow him to sue as indigent person upon inquiry into financial condition.

In Bapu Vadde v. Laxminarayan (1985) 2 SCC 480, the SC held courts have wide discretion to permit pauper suits so that doors of justice are not closed to poor. The permission can be granted at any stage.

As per Rule 8, where permission to sue as indigent is granted, the court may assign advocate to represent indigent person at government expense under legal services. Government may later recover the costs incurred for legal aid from property acquired by indigent person.

Part 3 – Interpleader Suit

Order XXXV deals with interpleader suit. Where two or more parties claim adversely to one another for the same money or property from another person who does not claim any interest, he may institute interpleader suit.

In United Bank of India v. Priya Devi (2004) 7 SCC 667, the SC held that the essential condition for an interpleader suit is that the plaintiff should not have any claim or interest in the subject matter. His only interest is to protect himself against the burden of litigation.

As per Order XXXV Rule 2, the court will decide the respective rights of claimants in a single suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings regarding same subject matter. This prevents inconsistent adjudication of competing claims.

Part 4 – Summary Procedure (Order XXXVII)

Order XXXVII provides a summary procedure for quick disposal of certain suits. As per Rule 2, summary procedure is applicable where suit is for recovery of money based on a commercial transaction like dishonoured cheque, bill of exchange or promissory note.

In Mechelec Engineers v. Basic Equipment Corporation (1976) 4 SCC 687, the SC held the object is to prevent unreasonable obstruction and provide speedy remedy by an expeditious hearing without trial for liquidated money claims arising from commercial transactions.

To defend the summary procedure, defendant has to apply for unconditional leave under Rule 3 within 10 days of service of summons. The court may grant leave to appear and defend suit if triable issues are disclosed and there are reasonable grounds to contest the claim.

Part 5 – Public Nuisance Suits (Section 91)

Section 91 provides that in case of public nuisance or apprehended danger, the Advocate General or two or more persons with leave of court, may institute suit for declaration and injunction or order for removal of nuisance.

In Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand (1980) 4 SCC 162, the Supreme Court held under Section 91, any member of the public can move for redressal of public nuisance caused by obstruction or encroachment in public streets or places. It provides remedy where public nuisance affects community at large.

Part 6 – Suits by or Against Minors

As per Order XXXII Rule 1, minor means a person who has not attained majority as per Majority Act i.e., 18 years. As per Rule 1, minors shall sue through their lawful guardian and defend through guardian ad litem.

In M.C. Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore (1970) 1 SCC 658, the SC held interest of minors requires protection against attacks of adversary. The court must appoint guardian ad litem to defend minors even if no application is made. Under Rule 12, no decree shall be passed against minor until court certifies it will be for minor’s benefit. As per Rule 7, court has duty to strike out or amend all proceedings to bring on record the legal representative of deceased defendant if they are minors.