RETURN OF PLAINT

Order 10- Rule 10

the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the court in which the suit should
have been instituted.

On returning a plain,
1)the judge shall endorse
– the date of its presentation and return the same of the party presenting it,

2) and a brief statement of reasons for returning it.

Case In Amar Chand v. Union of India

when the plaint is filed in proper court after getting it back from the wrong court, it cannot be said to be
continuation of suit.

Rule 10-A
IN any suit, after defendant appeared,
the court is of opinion that the plaint should be returned, it shall, before doing so, intimate this decision to
the plaintiff
and the plaintiff, may make an application to the court

(a) specifying the court in which he proposes to present the plaint after its return
(b) praying that the court may fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the said court
(c) requesting that the notice of the date so fixed may be given to him and to the defendant.

where an application is made by the plaintiff, the Court shall

a) fix a date for the appearance of parties incourt in which the plaint is proposed to be presented and
(b) give to the plaintiff and to the defendant notice of such date for appearance.

it shall not be necessary for the court in which the plaint is presented after its return, to serve the
defendant with a summons for appearance in the suit.

Rule 10-B
deals with the power of appellate court to transfer suit to the proper court.
where, on an appeal against an order for the return of plaint, the Court hearing the appeal confirms
such order
if the plaintiff by an application so desire, while returning the plaint, direct plaintiff to file the plaint,, in
the court in which the suit should have been instituted.

-and fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the court

-not be necessary for the court in which the plaint is filed to serve the defendant with the summons

REJECTION OF PLAINT

Order VII The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action- the plaintiff does not discloses facts that give the
plaintiff right to seek relief against defendant, the facts that are necessary to prove the damage caused to
plaintiff.
(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, fails to correct the valuation within a time
fixed by the Court,
(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently
stamped, and the plaintiff, fails to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time fixed by the Court,
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law -when the plaint
filed looks like to be barred by any statue and gives no right to plaintiff to file the suit and liable to
rejected if the court accepts the plaint is barred by law.
(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate – In any suit a duplicate copy of the plaint has to be filed and when
a duplicate copy of plaint is not filed it is liable to be dismissed.
(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with provisions of rule 9 – Where the plaintiff fails to comply
with the order 7 rule 9

Right of defendant to question the valuation in suit

-Defendant has a right to raise all objections regarding the valuation and deficiency of Court fees.
-The matter is to be adjudicated upon and decided by the Court under Section 12 of the Act 1870, and the
decision so taken by the trial Court shall be final.
-The defendant cannot raise a grievance against the said decision unless the valuation suggested by
him affects the jurisdiction of Court.
-However, the appellate Court can always test the issue suo motu (on its own) and make the deficiency
good as the purpose of the Act is not only fixing the pecuniary jurisdiction but also collecting revenue
for State.
-The defendant, does not have right to raise the issue further (unless matter of jurisdiction) and the order
passed by the Civil Court under Section 12 becomes final.
Cases Kerala High Court in Vasu V. Chakki Mani,-- no revision would lie against the decision on the
question of adequacy of Court fee at the instance of the defendant unless the question of Court fee
involves also the question of jurisdiction of the Court.
Shamsher Singh V. Rajinder Prashad-- The ratio of that decision was that no revision on a question of
court fee lay where no question of jurisdiction was involved

AMENDMENT OF PLEADING
Order VI RULE 17 provides for the powers to the courts in India to allow the amendments.

Framing of pleadings is the most fundamental and must be dealt with a lot of caution. The reason is
that, once the pleadings are framed, no one has the power to amend them expect for the judge on his
discretion.

One of the most important objects of allowing the amendment to pleadings is to prevent multiplicity of
suits. (If the amendment is sought seeking an ancillary relief is not allowed, then the party might have a
remedy to raise the same in the subsequent case. The amendments relating to constructive res judicata
must not be allowed by the courts.)

Interpretation of the rule (Order VI, Rule 17)

 1) court may allow any party at any stage to amend the proceedings if it considers that to be just.

2) All such amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions
in controversy between the parties

3) no application for the amendment shall be allowed by the court after the commencement of
the trial, unless the court is of opinion parties could not have raised the matter before
commencement of trial.

4) The rules of interpretation to be followed in interpreting this provision are very simple. The
provision can be divided into two parts

a) The first part is discretionary (“may”) and gives wide and unfettered discretion to decide on
case-to case basis whenever it appears to be just.

b) The second part is mandatory (“Shall”) and orders the court to accept all the applications
necessary for the purpose of determining the real issue between the parties

Object of the rule

1)subsequently allow amendments which are must for assessing the real controversy between the
parties

2) ensures that the injustice not caused to the either side based on minute omissions by the parties

3) object of Courts is to decide the rights of the parties, and not to punish them for mistakes they
make in the conduct of their cases

Nature and Scope

Rules of Courts are nothing but provisions intended for securing the ends of justice and all those rules
must be subordinate to achieve that purpose.

full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and liberally exercised by the courts and it has added a
caveat that an amendment cannot be made to substitute one cause of action for another.

Order I, Rule 10 confers the power to the court either to add or strike off a party to the suit

The situations wherein the amendments to the pleadings should or should not be allowed cannot be laid
down by a court of law in a straight jacket formula. It must be decided on case-by-case basis.

Interpretion of the expression “at any stage of proceedings”

Under Order 6, Rule 17, the courts were given power to amend the proceedings “at any stage of the
proceedings” which simply means that the amendment applications are not governed by the law of
limitations

The object of inserting such clause is to serve the ends of justice by determining the exact
controversy between the parties

The court may accept the application of amendment before, during or after the trial, after the decree,
in first appeal or in the second appeal or in the revision or in the High Court or Supreme Court.

if the court feels that permitting such amendment causes serious prejudice to the other party, then the
courts may not allow such an amendment
The proviso added by amendment in 2002 does not allow the court to allow amendment after the
commencement of the trial unless it comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, that matter
could not be raised by the party before the commencement of the trial.

Leave To Amend When Granted

1) Leave to amend will be granted so as to enable the real question on issue between the parties.
(where the amendment does not cause any injury to the opposite party)
2) Suraj Prakash vs. Raj Rani-- the Supreme Court held that liberal principles should guide the
court in the exercise of discretion in allowing amendment.

3) multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided

4) amendments which might change the character of the case must not be allowed.

Whether introducing New and Different case through Amendment of pleading permissible ?
The application to amend will be rejected if that seeks to introduce new and different case.

The proposed amendment will be refused if it would take away the other party’s legal right i.e the
defense under the law of limitation.

The proceedings cannot be amended if the party introduces a new case or lets in new evidence and if the
court feels that the amendment leads to unnecessary complications.

The court may refuse to allow the amendment if it feels that the party had several opportunities and
had slept over his rights.

Judicial approach in dealing with Pre-trial and post-trial application for amendment of pleading
Pre-trial amendments are more liberally allowed than the post-trial amendments.

The reason is that in the formal cases, it is assumed that the opposite party is not said to be prejudiced
as he has full opportunity of meeting the case put forward by his opponent. In the latter cases, the
question of prejudice may arise and must be dealt carefully.

If application to amendment was proposed after the commencement, the proposed amendment is
needed for bringing into the force the real controversial between the parties.

Court can refuse to entertain the application for amendment if it feels that it restraints the other
party’s legal rights which are accrued to him by lapse of time

Doctrine of relation back- If an amendment is incorporated in a pleading, the Court has the power to
direct in appropriate cases that such particular amendment does not relate back to the date of the
institution of the suit in the interest of justice.
(mandatory that the party seeking to amend the pleading should mention in the application specifically
as to what is to be altered or substituted in the original pleading.)

Amendment to written statements- the principles that apply to amendments of pleadings also apply to the
written statements
Amendments based on subsequent events- the courts can in the interest of the justice take notice of the
subsequent events and make appropriate amendments
Effect of 2002 Amendment
limiting the power of courts in granting the amendments after the commencement of the trial

intention of shortening the litigation and for the speedy disposal of the cases, order 17 was omitted
(often misused)

provision was restored back in 2002 in view of the protests, agitations and strikes all over the country
with a proviso

The new proviso provides that no application for amendment must be processed by the court after the
commencement of the trial, unless the courts come to the conclusion that in spite of the due-diligence of
the parties, they could not have raised before the commencement.

REPRESENTATIVE SUIT

Representative Suit' - suit filled by or against one or more persons on behalf of themselves and others
having same interest in the suit.

The general Rule is that -all persons interested in the suit should be joined as party to it so that matter
involved in it may finally and completely be adjudicated upon and fresh litigation over the same
matter may be avoided.

Rule 8 of Order 1 - (EXCEPTION) when there are number of persons commonly interested in a suit,
One or more of them can sue or be sued on behalf of themselves and other. Plaintiff in representative suit
need not to obtain previous consent of persons whom he represents.

PURPOSE-

to save time and expense

to ensure that a single comprehensive trial in which numerous persons are interested

to avoid multiplicity of suits.

CONDITIONS - Following Rules must exist for application of Rule 8 Order 1 of C.P.C.

(a) The Parties must be numerous.

(b) They must have same or common interest in suit.
(c) Permission must have been granted or direction must have been given by the court.
(d) Notice must have been issued to parties whom it proposed to represent in the suit.

Non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and mis-joinder of causes of action

Question of joinder of parties may arise either as regards the plaintiffs or as regards the defendants.

Joinder of plaintiffs (Rule 1) - All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where

(a) any right to relief ,rising out of, the same act, (or transaction or series of acts) , is alleged to exist in
such persons whether jointly, severally or in the alternative;

(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.

EXMPLE A enters into an agreement jointly with B and C to sell 100 tins of oil. A thereafter refuses to
deliver the goods. Here both, B and C have each of them a right to recover damages from A. The said
right arises out of the same transaction, namely, the breach of agreement; and common questions of law
and fact would also arise. B and C, therefore, may file a suit jointly as plaintiffs against A for damages.
Separate trials (Rule 2)- Where it appears to the court that any joinder of plaintiff may embarrass or
delay the trial of the suit, the court may put the plaintiffs to their election or order separate trials or
make such other order as may be expedient.

Joinder of defendants (Rule 3) - All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where -

(a) any right to relief arising out of, the same act (or transaction or series of acts or transactions,) is
alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative;

(b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would
arise.

Before going into Non-joinder or Mis-joinder of parties, it is necessary to understand the meaning of
"Necessary party" and "Proper party".

A necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable for proceeding with the suit and for final
decision

Proper party" is one in whose absence an effective order can be passed, but whose presence is necessary
for complete and final decision of suit.

NON and MIS JOINDER

non-joinder.- Where a person who is necessary or proper party to a suit has not been joined as a party to
suit

Mis-joinder if two or more persons are joined as plaintiffs or defendants in one suit in contravention of
Order 1 rule 1 and 3 and they are neither necessary nor proper party.

NOTE- No suit defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court may in
every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties
actually before it

Does not apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.

No suit can be decided without necessary parties to it

Rule 10 of Order 1 C.P.C. provides for substitution or addition of parties to suit on either of two grounds
namely:-
(a) He ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant and is not so joined or
(b) Without his presence, the question involved in the suit can not be completely decided.

NO suit dismissed for non or mis (only if necessary party not includer)

JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS

Section 9- The courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."

SUIT OF CIVIL NATURE

a suit is of civil nature is if the principal question therein relates to the determination of a civil
right and enforcement

Its not the status of the parties to the suit, but the subject-matter of it which determines whether or
not the suit is one of a civil nature
The expression "suit of civil nature" will cover private rights and obligations of a citizen

Political and religious questions are not covered by that expression

A suit in which principal question relates to caste or religion is not a suit of a civil nature.

But if the principal question in the suit is of a civil nature (the right to property or to an office)
and the adjudication incidentally involves the determination relating to a caste question or to
religious rights and ceremonies, it does not cease to be a suit of a civil nature

In view of Section 9 -
enquiry of the court should be confined to the dispute of a civil nature.
Any dispute which is not of a civil nature should be excluded from consideration.

Instances of some suits which are and which are not of civil nature

(A) Suit for dismissal from post of honourary secretary of an association is not suit of civil
nature within the meaning of Section 9.
(C) Suit to set aside the election of director's is suit of civil nature because in such suit, legal
right of some one for being appointed as "Directors' is challenged.
(D) Proceeding for dissolution of Muslim marriage is purely a suit of civil nature.
(E) Claim of any Swami to be carried out in palanquin is not a suit of civil nature, because, it
does not involve any legal right of Swami but claim is mark of honour.
(F) Suit for inspection of accounts of caste property is a civil nature, as every member of cast
is entitled to inspect account books at all reasonable times on demand.

Section 9 C.P.C. provides that Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain suit of civil nature
unless its cognizance is barred either expressly or impliedly.

Cognizance Expressly Barred

A suit is said to be expressly barred when it is barred by any statute for the time being in force.

Cognizance Impliedly Barred

A suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is barred by general principles of Law. For Example
where a specific remedy is given by a Statute, it thereby deprive the person who insists upon a
remedy in any other form than that given by the Statute.

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
Sections 15 to 20 of Code of Civil Procedure regulate the forum for the institution of suits.

Section 15 Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the Lowest grade competent to try it.
(pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court)

object of Section 15 is
– to see that court of higher grade may not be over burdened with suits and
– to ensure that justice may be provided at the door step of litigants.

Section 16- suits regarding immovable property are to be instituted in court within whose local
jurisdiction the property is situated.

Section 17- where a suit is to obtain relief respecting or compensation for wrong to immovable
property situate within the jurisdiction of different courts, the suit may be instituted in any
court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property, is situate,
Section 18 where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of jurisdiction of which
of two or more courts, any immovable property is situate, any one of those courts if satisfied
that there is ground for the alleged uncertainly, record a statement to that effect and
thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its
decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local
limits of its jurisdiction.

Section 19 where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable
property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one court -and the
defendant resides, -or carries on business, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another
court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said courts.

Section 20, every other suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of jurisdiction

(i) where the cause of action, wholly or partly, arises; or

(ii) where the defendant resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain; or

(iii) where there are two or more defendants, any of them resides or carries on business or personally
works for gain,

NOTE -A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India, in
respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.

Examples
Q. 22 Plaintiff a resident of Faridabad has filed a suit in Delhi Courts against the defendant, a
resident of Delhi for declaration that he has half share in the house situated in Kanpur and in the
sum of Rs. 50,000 lying deposited in a bank in Delhi and that defendant has wrongfully got the
house registered in his own name and is also not admitting the claim of plaintiff in the amount.
The defendant has contested the suit on the ground that Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction to try
the suit. How will you decide ?
In the present case plaintiff's claim is right or interest in immovable property which is situated at
Kanpur therefore in view of clause (d) of Section 16, Delhi Courts has no territorial jurisdiction to
decide the suit for such immovable property. Therefore plaintiff's suit for his right to or interest in
immovable property situated at Kanpur shall not be maintainable.
Now question arises as to claim of plaintiff for Rs. 50,000, lying deposited at Delhi Bank. Here
Section 20 of C.P.C. is relevant which provide that suits not covered by any Rules provided
under section 16 to 18 shall be filed :
Defendant in present case resides at Delhi and sum of Rs. 50,000, in respect of which cause of
action arose also lying deposited at Delhi Bank therefore in view of provisions of Section 20
C.P.C., plaintiff's suit at least for Rs. 50,000, is maintainable at Delhi Courts.

Q. 24 A transport company has its head office at Chandigarh and branch offices at Chennai, Jaipur and
Mumbai. A dispute cropped up between Sam and the company in respect of a transaction made through
Chennai office. Sam files a suit in respect of this dispute against the company in a court at Jaipur. How
the court will decide ?
So if a suit is filed against a Corporation on the ground of its carrying on business, then in view if
Explanation to Section 20, suit will lie where the Corporation has its head office even if no part of cause
of action arises there or branch office where cause of action has arose.
In the case in hand the suit against the Company can be filed at Chandigarh where it has its
head office, or at Chennai where the Company has its branch office and cause of action has
arisen at Chennai. No suit can be entertained by a Court at Jaipur or Mumbai, although the
company has its branch offices at those places, because no part of the cause of action arose
either at Jaipur or Mumbai.

Q. 26 Determine the place of suing in the following cases:

(i) `A', a resident of Delhi, `B' a resident of Bangalore and `C' of Calcutta, meet at Kurukshetra. There `B'
and `C' borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from `A' and jointly executed a pronote and handed it over to `A'. All of
them went back to their respective places but the money was not returned. `A' wants to file a suit for
recovery of his money.

(ii) Father of `A' and `B' had a bungalow at Gurgaon, one house at Rohtak and Delhi each and two big
mango-groves in the district of Hissar. After the death of the father, `A' took over the management of the
entire property and began appropriating the income. `B' wants to sue for partition of the property.
In the present case, the joint promissory note payable on demand was executed by B and C at
Kurukshetra. In other words, the contract was made at Kurukshetra. Therefore, A can file the suit on the
basis of the said pronote at Kurukshetra where a part of the cause of action arose. In view of the
provisions contained in Clause (b) of Section 20 of the Code, A can file the suit at Bangalore where B
resides, or at Calcutta where C resides; but in each of these cases either of the non-resident defendant
should acquiesce in such institution or the leave of the Court should be obtained. If the non-resident
defendant objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.
(ii) Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that subject to the pecuniary or other limitations
prescribed by any law, a suit for partition of immovable property shall be instituted in the court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. Then Section 17 lays down that where a suit is to
obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction
of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any
portion of the property is situate. This Section is practically another proviso to Section 16(1) of the Code.
Therefore, in the present case B can file a suit
Q. 25 A resides at Shimla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi. A, B and C being together at Varanasi, B and C
make a joint promissory note payable on demand and deliver it to A.
A files suit for recovery at Varanasi, B and C object to Jurisdiction of Court at Varanasi to try the suit
asserting that defendants B and C do not reside at Varanasi. How would you decide the objection ?
Under Section 20 CPC the plaintiff has the option of suing at a place either where the cause of action or a
part thereof has accrued, or in the forum of the defendant, i.e., where the defendant resides or carries on
business or personally works for gain.
In view of the provisions contained in Clause (b) of Section 20 of the Code, A can file the suit at Calcutta
where B resides, or at Delhi where C resides; but in each of these cases either the non-resident defendant
should acquiesce in such institution or the leave of the Court should be obtained. If the non-resident
defendant objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.
In the present case, the joint promissory note payable on demand was executed by B and C at
Varanasi. In other words, the contract was made at Varanasi. It is a settled proposition of law
that the making of the contract is a part of the cause of action, and, as such, a suit can be filed
on the basis of the said pronote at Varanasi where the cause of action arose

OBJECTION AS TO JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS

Section 21(1), OBJECTION AS TO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION no objection as to the

place of suing will be allowed by an appellate or revisional court unless the following three
conditions are satisfied :

(i) The objection was taken in the court of first instance ;

(ii) It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled at
or before settlement of issues ; and
(iii) There has been a consequent failure of justice.

Section 21 (2) OBJECTION AS TO PECUNIARY JURISDICTION no objection as to the

competence of a court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by
any appellate or revisional Court unless...

(Same cond. As before)

 Doctrine of Res Subjudice (STAY OF SUIT)

Section 10 - No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is
also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same
parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same
title where such suit is pending in the same or any other court in India having jurisdiction to
grant the relief claimed, or in any court beyond the limits of India established or constituted
by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court."

The object of the Rule to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously
entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the
same subject-matter and the same relief.

For the application of this Section , the following conditions must be satisfied :-
(1) There must be two suits, one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted.
(2) The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly in issue in the previous suit.
(3) Both the suits must be between the same parties or their representatives.
(4) The previously instituted suit must be pending in the same court in which the subsequent
suit is brought or in any other court in India or in any court beyond the limits of India
established or continued by the Central Government or before the Supreme Court.
(5) The court in which the previous suit is instituted must have jurisdiction to grant the relief
claimed in the subsequent suit.
(6) Such parties must be litigating under the same title in both the suits.
 DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

Res Judicata' means a case or suit involving a particular issue between two or more parties
already decided by a court. Thereafter, if either of the parties approaches the same court for the
adjudication of the same issue, the suit will be struck by the law of 'res judicata'.

The doctrine of Res Judicata is based on three Roman maxims:

(a) Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa which means that no man should be vexed
(annoyed) twice for the same cause;

(b) Interest republicae ut sit finis litium meaning thereby that it is in the interest of the state
that there should be an end to a litigation; and

(c) Re judicata pro veritate occipitur which bears the meaning as a judicial decision must
be accepted as correct.

Purpose

rule of conclusiveness of a judgement,

once a matter is finally decided by a competent court; no party can be permitted to reopen it in a
subsequent litigation.

In the absence of such a rule there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put to constant
trouble, harassment and expenses.

This principle rests on two principles i.e.

(i) one should not be vexed twice for same cause; and
(ii) (ii) there should be finality to litigation.

Section 11- no court shall try any suit or issue in which the issue directly and substantially, in a
former suit, between the same parties or their representatives, in a competent court, has been
heard and finally decided by such court.
Scope of Res Judicata
Section 11 does create any right or interest over the property but merely operates as a bar to try the issue
‘once again’.
The scope of the principle of Res Judicata is not confined to what is contained in Section 11 but is of
more general application. Res Judicata could be as much applicable to different stages of the same suit as
to findings on issues in different suits.

There are five conditions which must be satisfied for the application of res judicata:
1. The matter directly in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which
was directly in issue, in the former suit.
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties
3. In the former suit, the parties must have litigated under the same title.
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court which is
competent to try this subsequent suit.
5. The matter which is directly in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard
and finally decided by the court in the former suit.

Definitions:
Mesne Profits: operty means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property
actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such
profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession.
However following principles would ordinarily guide a court for determining the amount of mesne profits :-
(i) no profit by a person in wrongful possession;
(ii) restoration of status before dispossession of decree holder; &
(iii) use to which the decree-holder would have put the property if he himself was in possession.

Foreign Judgment - Section 2(5) of Code has defined "Foreign Court" as a court situated outside India and
not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government. Similarly section 2(6) say
"Foreign Judgement" means a judgment of a foreign Court.

C) Judgment-debtor. - Section 2(10) of Code of Civil Procedure says -

`Judgment-debtor' means any person against whom a decree has been passed, or an order capable of
execution has been made. Where the decree is passed against a surety, he is a judgment-debtor within the
meaning of this section. On the other hand, a person who is a party to the suit, but no decree has been
passed against him, is not a "judgment-debtor."

(D) Decree holder. - Then Section 2(3) of Code defines "Decree-holder" as -

`Decree-holder' means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order
capable of execution has been made. From this definition, it is clear that the decree-holder
need not necessarily be the plaintiff. A person who is not a party to the suit but in whose
favour an order capable of execution has been passed is also a decree-holder.

(E) Legal Representative. - The term, `legal representative' has been defined in section 2(11) of
the Civil Procedure Code. According to it, `legal representative' means a person who in law
represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the
estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character, the person
on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.
it is not necessary that a person should be a legal heir of a deceased person or that he
should have a beneficial interest in the estate.