Alternate Dispute Resolution under Section 89

of the CPC - A Critical Analysis

(Project towards partial fulfilment of the assessment in the subject of Law of
Arbitration and ADR)

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Nitish Kaushik Ms. Aakanksha Kumar

Roll No. 776 Assistant Professor

U.G.- IX Semester Faculty of Law

B.B.A. (Hons.), L.L.B. (Hons.)

Final Word Count - 4549

National Law University, Jodhpur

Summer Session

(July - November 2014)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A major project like this is never the work of anyone alone. The contributions of many
different people, in their different ways, have made this possible. It gives me great
satisfaction to prepare this project.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and personal regards to Ms.
Aakanksha Kumar for inspiring and guiding me during the course of this project work.
Without her valuable guidance and support the completion of the project would not have been
possible.

I would like to thank the library staff for working long hours to facilitate me with required
material going a long way in quenching my thirst for education. I am also thankful to my
parents who continuously encouraged and inspired me for my project work.

Efforts have been made to avoid errors but in spite of it some errors might have
crept in inadvertently. Above all, I would like to thank the Almighty without whose blessings
the completion of this project would not have been possible.

Nitish Kaushik

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5

OBJECT OF SECTION 89 ........................................................................................................ 7

SCOPE OF SECTION 89 .......................................................................................................... 7

DRAFTING ERRORS IN SECTION 89- AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE CASE ................. 10

ALTERNATIVE FORUMS- AN INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 12

Arbitration ............................................................................................................................ 12

Conciliation .......................................................................................................................... 12

Lok Adalat ........................................................................................................................... 12

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE LAW COMMISSION REPORT ........................... 13

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 16

3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The project seeks to critically analyse the Alternate Dispute Resolution under Section 89 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A desired project is impossible without a good and consistent research work, which has to be
done over a long period of time. I found non-empirical research methodology as the best
research methodology, which can be used for the available text material for comparison. I
also had used World Wide Web as a non-empirical research method to accomplish this
project with possible wisdom. I have used explanatory and descriptive research to elaborate
various forms of legal interpretations. To make the work more comprehensive and
appreciable, the material gathered from the research work has to be analyzed and appreciated
in the researchers’ own way, so that the work gives a clear idea form the books and world
wide web to a layman.

4
INTRODUCTION
By the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999, section 89 had been introduced in
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and it became effective from 01-07-2002. Section 89 of
the CPC reads as under:

Settlement of disputes outside the Court.- (1)Where it appears to the court that there exist
elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the court shall formulate the
terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the
observations of the parties, the court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and
refer the same for –

a) arbitration;

b) conciliation;

c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or

d) mediation

(2) Where a dispute has been referred- (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or
conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act; (b) to Lok Adalat,
the court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-
section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and all other provisions
of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat; (c) for judicial
settlement, the court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such
institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat
under the provisions of that Act; (d) for mediation, the court shall effect a compromise
between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.”

The related provisions which were incorporated by the same amendment Act are those contained
in Rules 1A, 1B and 1C of Order X, CPC, which are extracted hereunder:

(1A) Direction of the Court to opt for any one mode of alternative dispute resolution.—After
recording the admissions and denials, the court shall direct the parties to suit to opt either mode of
the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-section (1) of section 89. On the option of the

5
parties, the court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority as may be opted
by the parties.”

(1B) Appearance before the conciliatory forum or authority.– where a suit is referred under
rule 1A, the parties shall appear before such forum or authority for conciliation of the suit.”

(1C) Appearance before the Court consequent to the failure of efforts of conciliation.-
Where a suit is referred under rule 1A and the forum or authority to whom the matter has been
referred is satisfied that it would not be proper in the interest of justice to proceed with the matter
further, then it shall refer the matter again to the court and direct the parties to appear before the
court on the date fixed by it.”

Original Section 89 of the Code was repealed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Schedule III.
Section 89 was reinserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999 interalia
providing for settlement of dispute outside the Court. This provision was inserted based on
the acceptance of Justice Malimath Committee report, wherein the said Committee had
emphasized for providing a legal sanction to such machinery for resolution of disputes and
resort thereto in order to reduce and control the inflow of commercial transaction in regular
civil courts. Justice Malimath Committee was also of the view that, the resolution of dispute
be made obligatory on the part of the court, to resolve for the settlement of the disputes and
the Committee agreeing with the Law Commission recommended to provide for settlement of
disputes outside the court at any stage of the proceedings by means of judicial settlement,
arbitration, conciliation, mediation or through Lok Adalat and it is only after the party fails to
get the dispute settled through any one of the alternative dispute resolution method, the suit
shall proceed further in the court in which it was filed. The object, for making it obligatory on
the part of the Court to refer the matter to the alternative dispute resolution methods, is to
provide early disposal of the disputes, avoiding long waiting for justice for years and further
avoiding judicial wrangles and multiplicity of appeals/revisions and also to reduce the burden
on the judiciary of huge areas of cases pending at different levels of Courts. The result of this
recommendation, Section 89 was inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure. 1 The reintroduction
of Section 89 is a pointer to the fact that the object of the legislature is to encourage
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.2

1
State of Bihar v. Chinibas Mahto, 2007 (2) BLJR 2724.
2
Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (2010) 4 CompLJ 345 (Mad).

6
OBJECT OF SECTION 89
The object behind Section 89 is to encourage the parties to arrive at settlement and if that
object is sought to be achieved by means of referring the matter to any of the four methods
mentioned in Section 89, then even the settlement arrived at the earliest stage before the
Court would also be one of the method provided under Section 89 Sub-section (1).3 The
present system of dispute resolution certainly suffers from four major
inadequacies/deficiencies. Of all the inadequacies the worst and the most objectionable is the
law’s delays. Expeditious justice remains only a dream. Even a child in India knows and
repeats the adage “justice delayed is justice denied”. Alternative dispute resolution modes
have been stipulated and identified to get over these four inadequacies in our present system.
The search for the ideal dispute resolution methodology continues. But Section 89 certainly
emphasizes and addresses the first of these four inadequacies, namely elimination of delay.
An anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs which led to the enactment of Section 89
must convey unmistakably that emphasis was made on the ability of ADR mechanisms to
render expeditious justice and thus help to take away the burden on the over burdened
system.4

SCOPE OF SECTION 89
Section 89, its first part uses the word “shall” when it stipulates that “the Court shall
formulate the terms of the settlement”. The use of the word “may” in later part of Section 89
only relates to the aspect of reformulating the terms of a possible settlement. The intention of
the legislature behind enacting Section 89 is that where it appears to the Court that there
exists element of settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, they, at the instance of
the court, shall be made to apply their mind so as to opt for one or the other of the four ADR
methods mentioned in the Section and if the parties do not agree, the Court shall refer them to
one or other of the said modes. Section 89 uses both the word “shall” and “may” whereas
Order X, Rule 1A uses the word “shall” but on harmonious reading of these provisions it
becomes clear that the use of the word “may” in Section 89 only governs the aspect of
reformulation of the terms of a possible settlement and its reference to one of the ADR
methods. There is no conflict, it is evident that what is referred to one of the ADR modes is

3
A. Sreeramaiah v. The South Indian Bank Ltd., 2007 (1) KarLJ 67.
4
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. v. Cherian Varkey Construction P. Ltd. & Ors., 2007 (1) KLJ 333.

7
the dispute which is summarized in the terms of settlement formulated or reformulated in
terms of Section 89.5

A doubt has been expressed in relation to clause (d) of Section 89 (2) of the Code on the
question as to finalisation of the terms of the compromise. The question is whether the term
of the compromise is to be finalised by or before the mediator or by or before the court. It is
evident that all the four alternatives, namely Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement
including settlement through Lok Adalat and mediation are meant to be the action of persons
or institution outside the Court and not before the Court. Order X, Rule 1C speaks of the
“Conciliation forum” referring back the dispute to the Court. In fact the court is not involved
in actual mediation/conciliation. Clause (d) of Section 89(2) only means that when mediation
succeeds and parties agree to the term of the settlement, the mediator will report to the court
and the court, after giving notice and hearing the parties, “effect” the compromise and pass a
decree in accordance with the terms of settlement accepted by the parties. Further, in this
view, there is no question of the Court which refers the matter to mediation/conciliation being
debarred from hearing the matter where settlement is not arrived at. The Judge who makes
the reference only considers the limited question as to whether there are reasonable grounds
to expect that there will be settlement and on that ground he cannot be treated to be
disqualified to try the suit afterwards if no settlement is arrived at between the parties.6

It should not be overlooked that even though Section 89 mandates Courts to refer pending
suits to any of the several alternative dispute resolution processes mentioned therein, there
cannot be a reference to arbitration even under Section 89 Code of Civil Procedure, unless
there is a mutual consent of all parties, for such reference. 7 A compromise cannot be one-
sided. If a Defendant offers to compromise the suit and the Plaintiff outright rejects the offer,
no compromise can be reached; in such a situation if the trial Court declines to delay disposal
of the suit by resorting to efforts of compromise, it cannot be said to have failed to exercise
its jurisdiction under Section 89.8

The settlement arrived at between the parties pursuant to proceedings under Section 89 have
to be respected and implemented. Objections against settlements have to be dealt with heavy
hands. If amicable settlements are discarded and rejected on flimsy pleas, the parties would

5
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353.
6
Ibid.
7
Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander, (2007) 5 SCC 719.
8
West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Shanti Conductors Private Ltd., AIR 2004 Gau 70.

8
be wary of entering into negotiated settlements and making payments there under as a shrewd
party after entering into a negotiated settlement, may pocket the amount received under it and
thereafter, challenge the settlement and reagitate the dispute causing immeasurable loss and
harassment to the party making payment there under. This tendency has to be checked and
such litigants discouraged by the Courts. It would be in consonance with public policy of
India.9

Section 89, Civil Procedure Code cannot be resorted to for interpreting Section 8 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act as it stands on a different footing and it would be applicable
even in cases where there is no arbitration agreement for referring the dispute for
arbitration.10

Lok Adalat is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. It is the duty of court to ensure
that parties have recourse to the Alternative Dispute Resolution processes and to encourage
litigants to settle their disputes in an amicable manner. But there should be no pressure, force
coercion or treat to the litigants to settle disputes against their wishes. Judges also require
some training in selecting and referring cases to Lok Adalats or other ADR processes.
Mechanical reference to unsuited mode of ADR process may well be counterproductive. A
plaintiff who comes to court alleging unlawful encroachment by a neighbour may well ask
what kind of settlement he should have with an encroacher in a Lok Adalat. He cannot
obviously be asked to sacrifice a part of his land for purposes of amicable settlement thereby
perpetuating the illegality of an encroachment. A plaintiff alleging fraud and forgery of
documents against a defendant may well ask what settlement he can have with a fraudster or
forger through ADR process as any settlement may mean yielding to or accepting fraud or
forgery.11

Court fees would be refunded upon the recording of amicable settlement under Section 89 of
the Code. The model rules, with or without modification, which are formulated may be
adopted by the High Court concerned.

9
Double Dot Finance Limited v. Goyal MG Gasers Ltd., 2005 (2) AD (Delhi) 534.
10
Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya, AIR 2003 SC 2252.
11
B.P. Moideen Sevamandir v. A.M. Kutty Hassan, (2009) 2 SCC 198.

9
DRAFTING ERRORS IN SECTION 89- AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE CASE
The first and foremost incongruity, which has also been pointed out by the Supreme Court in
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Consturction Co. (P) Ltd.12, is related to sub-
section (1) of section 89, especially the words “shall formulate the terms of settlement”. The
sub-section requires the court to formulate the terms of settlement and place them before the
parties “for their observations” and then reformulate the terms of a possible settlement in the
light of their observations. A literal reading further shows that on such reformulation, the
court shall have to refer the dispute for one of the five ADR methods, which is really
meaningless. The language of section 73(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been
borrowed and practically transplanted into section 89 without appreciating the intended scope
and purpose of section 89. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the formulation and
reformulation of the terms of settlement by the court is wholly out of place at the stage of pre-
ADR reference.

The Supreme Court extracted section 73(1) of the AC Act and section 89 of the CPC to
highlight the absurdity and commented that if the reference is to be made to arbitration, the
terms of settlement formulated by the court will be of no use, as what is referred to arbitration
is the dispute and not the terms of settlement; and the arbitrator will adjudicate upon the
dispute and give his decision by way of award. If the reference is to
conciliation/mediation/Lok Adalat, then drawing up the terms of the settlement or
reformulating them is the job of the conciliator or the mediator or the Lok Adalat, after going
through the entire process of conciliation/mediation. Thus, the terms of settlement drawn up
by the court will be totally useless in any subsequent ADR process. Why then the courts
should be burdened with the onerous and virtually impossible, but redundant, task of
formulating the terms of settlement at pre-reference stage?

In this context, it may be mentioned that the Supreme Court in Salem Advocates Bar
Association v. UOI13 had equated the words “terms of settlement” to “summary of disputes”
in an apparent attempt to resolve the anomaly.

Section 89 has to be read with Rule 1-A of Order 10 which requires the court to direct the
parties to opt for any of the five modes of alternative dispute resolution processes and on their
option refer the matter. The said Rule does not require the court to either formulate the terms

12
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Consturction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24.
13
Supra note 5.

10
of settlement or make available such terms of settlement to the parties to reformulate the
terms of possible settlement after receiving the observations of the parties. Therefore, the
only practical way of reading Section 89 and Order 10 Rule 1-A is that after the pleadings are
complete and after seeking admissions/denials wherever required, and before framing issues,
the Court will have recourse to Section 89 of the Code. Such recourse requires the court to
consider and record the nature of the dispute, inform the parties about five options available
and take note of their preferences and then refer them to one of the alternative dispute
resolution processes.

Secondly, the Supreme Court very rightly exposed the other obvious drafting error in mixing
up the terms “judicial settlement” and “mediation”. The Supreme Court pointed out that in
order to give proper meaning to section 89, the said two words should be interchanged.
“Mediation” should find place in clause (c) of section 89 (2) and “judicial settlement” should
be transferred to clause (d) in place of “mediation”. Otherwise, as succinctly pointed out by
the apex Court, the anomaly would persist.
This anomaly has been explained in the following words: “The first anomaly is the mixing up
of the definitions of “mediation” and judicial settlement” under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-
section (2) of Section 89 of the Code. Clause (c) says that for “judicial settlement”, the court
shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person who shall be deemed to be a Lok
Adalat. Clause (d) provides that where the reference is to “mediation”, the court shall effect a
compromise between the parties by following such procedure as may be prescribed. It makes
no sense to call a compromise effected by a court, as “mediation”, as is done in clause (d).
Nor does it make any sense to describe a reference made by a court to a suitable institution or
person for arriving at a settlement as “judicial settlement”, as is done in clause (c).”
In tune with the above discussion, the Supreme Court propounded the amendments in the
following terms: “In view of the foregoing, it has to be concluded that proper interpretation of
Section 89 of the Code requires two changes from a plain and literal reading of the court.
Firstly, it is not necessary for the court, before referring the parties to an ADR process, to
formulate or reformulate the terms of a possible settlement. It is sufficient if the court merely
describes the nature of dispute (in a sentence or two) and makes the reference. Secondly, the
definitions of “judicial settlement” and “mediation” in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 89(2)
shall have to be interchanged to correct the draftsman’s error. Clauses (c) and (d) of Section
89(2) of the Code will read as under when the two terms are interchanged: (c) for
“mediation”, the court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such

11
institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a
Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act; (d) for “judicial settlement”, the court shall
effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be
prescribed.”

ALTERNATIVE FORUMS- AN INTRODUCTION

Arbitration
The whole of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies when the matter is referred
to arbitration or conciliation by the trial court. The constitution of the arbitral tribunal and its
procedure will be in accordance with that Act. Moreover, Section 19 of the Act provides that
the Arbitral tribunal shall not be bound by the CPC 1908 or the Evidence Act, 1872.

Conciliation
Part I and II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deal with the law and procedure
governing settlement of disputes through arbitration. Part III relates to conciliation which is
an alternative mechanism for settlement of disputes an alternative to arbitration and court
litigation.
Settlement of disputes- Section 65 empowers the appointed conciliator to request the parties
to him brief particulars of the disputes. No elaborate ‘pleadings’ are required. In order to have
a wider and proper perception of the matter, they may call from each party for further or
additional information specifying his position and the facts and grounds in support thereof
together with the requisite documents or other evidence.
Section 66 is on the same lines as Section 19(1) relating to the conduct of arbitration
proceedings. A conciliator is not bound by the procedure laid down in the CPC or the
Evidence Act.

Lok Adalat
The procedural provisions in respect of disputes referred to Lok Adalat are contained in
sections 19 to 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 under Section 22 relating to
powers of Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat has been conferred with the powers of a Civil Court
under the CPC, 1908 in respect of the matters specified therein.

12
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE LAW COMMISSION REPORT
The Commission recommends the following amendments to the relevant provisions of CPC
dealing with alternative dispute resolution.14

The following shall be substituted in the place of existing section 89 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908:

Section 89: Settlement of disputes outside the court - 1) Where it appears to the court,
having regard to the nature of the dispute involved in the suit or other proceeding that the
dispute is fit to be settled by one of the non-adjudicatory alternative dispute resolution
processes, namely, conciliation, judicial-settlement, settlement through Lok Adalat or
mediation the court shall, preferably before framing the issues, record its opinion and direct
the parties to attempt the resolution of dispute through one of the said processes which the
parties prefer or the court determines.

2) Where the parties prefer conciliation, they shall furnish to the court the name or names of
the conciliators and on obtaining his or their consent, the court may specify a time-limit for
the completion of conciliation. Thereupon, the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as far as may be, shall apply and to this effect, the
court shall inform the parties. A copy of the settlement agreement reached between the
parties shall be sent to the court concerned. In the absence of a settlement, the conciliator
shall send a brief report on the process of conciliation and the outcome thereof.

3) Where the dispute has been referred:-

a) for judicial-settlement, the Judicial Officer shall endeavour to effect a compromise

between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed;

b) to Lok Adalat, the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (7) of section 20, sections 21 and 22 of
the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred and
the Lok Adalat shall send a copy of the award to the court concerned and in case no award is
passed, send a brief report on the proceedings held and the outcome thereof; c) for mediation,
the court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person or persons with appropriate
directions such as time-limit for completion of mediation and reporting to the court.

14
Law Commission of India, Report No. 238: Amendment of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
and Allied Provisions, December, 2011.

13
4) On receipt of copy of the settlement agreement or the award of Lok Adalat, the court, if it
finds any inadvertent mistakes or obvious errors, it shall draw the attention of the conciliator
or the Lok Adalat who shall take necessary steps to rectify the agreement or award suitably
with the consent of parties.

5) Without prejudice to section 8 and other allied provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, the court may also refer the parties to arbitration if both parties enter
into an arbitration agreement or file applications seeking reference to arbitration during the
pendency of a suit or other civil proceeding and in such an event, the arbitration shall be
governed, as far as may be, by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The suit or other proceeding shall be deemed to have been disposed of accordingly”.

The existing rule 1B of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure should be deleted. In the
place of existing Rules 1-A and 1-C of Order X, the following rules shall be substituted:

(1A) Direction of the court to opt for any one mode of alternative dispute resolution.- At
the stage of framing issues or the first hearing of the suit, the court shall direct the parties to
opt either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-section (1) of section
89 and for this purpose may require the parties to be personally present and in case of non-
attendance without substantial cause, follow the procedure for compelling the attendance of
witness. The court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority or persons
as may be opted by the parties or chosen by the court.”

(1B) Appearance before the court consequent upon the failure of efforts of conciliation.-
Where a suit is referred under rule 1A and the presiding officer of conciliation forum or
authority or the person to whom the matter has been referred is satisfied that it would not be
proper in the interest of justice to proceed with the matter further, in view of the stand taken
by the respective parties, it shall refer the case back to the court who shall direct the parties to
appear before it on the date fixed and proceed with the suit.

14
CONCLUSION
The foremost reason for the misinterpretation of the Section 89 of the CPC is primarily due to
the drafting errors in that section which is abstractly understood by its readers. Secondly, the
incorporation of the two sub-sections (i.e. Section 89 (c) (d)) has been erroneous which has in
fact made it difficult even for the layman to interpret.

The anomalies of Section 89 have been addressed by the judiciary in various case laws, but
the section still remains unchanged by the legislature. It is a viable section which has the
potential to reduce the burden of the Indian judiciary and accomplish what every justice
system aims for, fair and speedy justice for all, since justice delayed is justice denied.

This section addresses the need of the hour that is the requirement to reduce the load of our
adversarial judicial system. ADR processes can be finally made an active part of the Justice
system through this section. But this section needs to be properly formed through a thorough
responsible debate by the law academicians and judicial authorities. This section needs to be
looked into again by the parliament to iron out the creases and make it an effective solution to
provide speedy, satisfactory justice, at an affordable cost.

An anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs which led to the enactment of Section 89
must convey unmistakably that emphasis was made on the ability of ADR mechanisms to
render expeditious justice and thus help to take away the burden on the over burdened
system.

15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Statues:
 Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
 The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

Books:
 SUDIPTO SARKAR & VR MANOHAR, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (11th ed.
2011).
 ANUPAM SRIVASTAVA & MONIKA SRIVASTAVA, THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1908 (3rd ed. 2010).
 VINAY KUMAR GUPTA, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (14th ed. 2005).

Cases:

A. Sreeramaiah v. The South Indian Bank Ltd., 2007 (1) KarLJ 67. ......................................... 7
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. v. Cherian Varkey Construction P. Ltd. & Ors., 2007 (1)
KLJ 333. ................................................................................................................................. 7
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Consturction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24. . 10
B.P. Moideen Sevamandir v. A.M. Kutty Hassan, (2009) 2 SCC 198. ...................................... 9
Double Dot Finance Limited v. Goyal MG Gasers Ltd., 2005 (2) AD (Delhi) 534. ................. 9
Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander, (2007) 5 SCC 719. ....................................................... 8
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353. ........... 8
State of Bihar v. Chinibas Mahto, 2007 (2) BLJR 2724. .......................................................... 6
Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya, AIR 2003 SC 2252. .................................... 9
Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (2010) 4 CompLJ 345 (Mad). ... 6
West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Shanti Conductors Private Ltd., AIR 2004 Gau 70. ... 8

Report:
 Law Commission of India, Report No. 238: Amendment of Section 89 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 and Allied Provisions, December, 2011.

16