EFFORTS TAKEN TO MAKE CIVIL PROCEDURE

CODE, 1908 MORE EFFECTIVE AND JUSTICE

ORIENTED
 INTRODUCTION
A civilized society is governed by two types of laws- substantive and procedural. Though
substantive laws, that govern the rights and obligations of individuals are more important than
procedural laws, their efficacy depends on the substance of procedural laws. Therefore, it is
important for the procedural law to be fair and expeditious so that the substantive laws achieve
their object. The law governing the procedure of settling civil disputes in India is the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter CPC). It was enacted in 1859 by the British. Later, the 1859
code was amended in 1877 and furthermore in 1882. After a lot of deliberation and judicial
conflict, a revised Code of Civil Procedure Bill was examined by a Special Committee led by Sir
Earle Richards and it received the assent of Governor General of India on 21 March, 1908 giving
us the CPC.

The object of CPC is to ensure procedural regularity in civil litigation. It has to adhere to
the principles of natural justice and ensure that the parties get a fair and expeditious trial. The
latter have been held to be a part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
International instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 1 and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19662 (ICCPR), of which India is a part,
also recognize fair and speedy trial as essential principles of justice. The provisions in CPC seek
to maintain these principles and keep the procedure effective and justice oriented. A meticulous
examination of the CPC through the passage of time has resulted in many amendments being
mage to it to increase its efficacy.

This project seeks to examine the changes made in CPC by three major amendments-
1976, 1999 and 2002 and their impact on procedure. The initial sections discuss the concepts of
natural justice, fair and expeditious trail and how the CPC ensures that these are followed. The
subsequent sections elucidate provisions relating to res judicata, access to justice, settlement of
family disputes and special provisions regarding women. A humanist approach adopted by CPC

1
Article 10, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III),
10 December 1948.
2
Article 14, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI),
December 16 1966.

1
has also been examined. The concluding section critically analyses the changes brought about by
the abovementioned amendments.

A. PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The main objective of the CPC is to ensure that the contesting parties get an equal
opportunity to argue their case. The expression ‘principles of natural justice’ is used to highlight
the ‘criteria of procedural fairness’ 3 that should be followed. They ensure that decisions are
arrived at after careful scrutiny of the evidence and without any bias after hearing both the
parties. The concept of natural justice involves two ideas (a) Nemo judex in re sua which means
that the authority before which the dispute is raised should be unbiased (b) audi alteram partem
meaning the affected person has a right to be heard.4 These principles have not been laid down
exhaustively anywhere. Whether there has been a violation of these principles depends on the
facts and circumstances of each case and it for the court to decide.

(I) FAIR TRIAL

The Supreme Court held in Sangram Singh v Election Tribunal, Kotah5 that any decision
which is likely to affect the life and property of a person should not be taken behind his back
without giving him a chance to be heard. For the procedure to be called fair, all the decisions that
are taken must be accompanied by reasons. The defendant has to be given a fair hearing. What
constitutes ‘fair’ varies from case to case. The defendant may be only asked to submit a written
statement or given a full hearing. Before starting the adjudication process, the defendant must be
given a proper notice. A proceeding initiated without notifying the defendant will be violative of
natural justice.6 But the underlying idea of a ‘fair’ procedure is that the defendant must know
what action is initiated against him and why. He should have a copy of all the documents that
may be used against him. He should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

3
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT, West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65; M/s Mehta, Parikh & Co. v CIT, Bombay AIR
1956 SC 554.
4
MP Jain and SN Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (4th edn, Wadhwa and Company, Agra Nagpur 2002) 219.
5
AIR 1955 SC 425.
6
For instance, East India Commercial Co. v Collector of Customs AIR 1962 SC 1793; Municipal Board v State
Transport Authority AIR 1965 SC 459.

2
(a) Issuance of Summons to the Defendant:
In CPC, Rule 1 in Order V is the principal rule that governs the issuance of summons to the
defendant after a plaint has been presented before a court. The defendant is given an opportunity
to prepare his defense with regard to the claims made in the plaint. Summoning the defendant is
a mandatory requirement for proceeding with the trial, except in cases where the defendant is
present when the plaint is presented and he accepts the claims of the plaintiff.7 Rules 2, 6 and 7
of Order V were amended by section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999
(hereinafter the 1999 amendment) providing for a copy of the plaint and all the other documents
relied on by the plaintiff to be given to the defendant along with the summons. This provision
was made to make the defendant aware of all the materials that can be used against him and he
can prepare his defense accordingly.

(b) Cross-Examination of Witnesses:

An important aspect of ensuring a fair trail is to allow the defendant to cross-examine
witnesses. The purposes of cross-examination are ‘to impeach the accuracy, credibility and
general value of evidence.’8 The defendant should know about the evidence presented against
him and it should be available for his ‘information, comments and criticism.’9 Thus formal cross-
examination is a part of procedural justice. While the court can ask for the personal attendance of
any witness provided he is not exempted under any provision of the CPC, provisions have been
made to allow either party to cross-examine the witnesses. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2, Order XIX
states that if the court believes that a party bona fide desires the presence of a witness in the court
for cross-examination and the witness can be produced before the court, it can call for the
witness to be present in court for the purpose of cross-examination by the other party.

(c) Appeals:
Where a substantial question of law is involved, Section 96 of CPC allows for an appeal
from an original decree to protect the rights of the judgment-debtor. The 1976 amendment
prevented appeal from any suit cognizable by Court of Small Causes, except those involving

7
MR Mallick, Ganguly’s Civil Court: Practice and Procedure (13th edn, Eastern Law House 2005) 320.
8
Justice MR Mallick, P Ramanathan Iyer’s Cross Examination: Principles and Precedents (4th edn, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2011) 132.
9
ibid.

3
substantial questions of law, when the amount did not exceed three thousand rupees. The 1999
amendment increased this limit to ten thousand rupees. A major change introduced by this
amendment in Section 100A. It prohibited appeal against a decree or order passed by a single
judge bench of a high court in any proceedings under article 226 or 227. The section was
introduced by 1976 amendment and modified by the amendments in 1999 and 2002. Section 102
does not permit appeals in matters where the monetary amount to be recovered does not exceed
twenty five thousand rupees. It was amended in 1976 where the amount was increased to three
thousand rupees from the original amount of one thousand rupees and further in 1999 where the
amount was further increased to twenty five thousand rupees.

(d) Revision:
Another important provision is Section 115. It gives the power to the High Court to call for
cases decided by any subordinate court and if the High Court feels that the subordinate court did
not have jurisdiction or it exceeded its jurisdiction or it exercised its jurisdiction in an illegal
manner or with material irregularity. The Malimath Committee suggested that records of
proceedings of the lower courts should be sent to the High Court for revision only if the High
Court so desired. Its recommendations were incorporated by the 1999 amendment. It also
changed sub-section 3 to add that a revision should not stay the proceedings before the trial court
unless expressly stayed by the High Court.

(II) EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

The right to get a speedy trial has been recognized by the Supreme Court to be a
constitutional right under Article 21.10 Its basis lies in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v State of
Bihar11 where Justice Bhagvati held that a procedure that did not ensure a reasonably expeditious
trial could not be said to be fair. The efforts have long been aimed at clearing the backlog of
cases that still continue to exist. This was identified by the Law Commission of India as long

10
Press Trust of India, ‘Right to Speedy Trial a Constitutional Right:SC’ (India Today, New Delhi, 13 July 2008)
<http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Right+to+speedy+trial+a+constitutional+right:+SC/1/11270.html> accessed 14
Februrary 2014.
11
AIR 1979 SC 1369.

4
back as 1958.12 The 54th Law Commission Report13 meticulously examined CPC to streamline
the procedure and ensure expeditious trials. The 77th report also suggested changes to reduce the
delay and arrears at the trial stage.14 But recently the Supreme Court had to appoint an amicus
curiae in a case to formulate guidelines for speedy trials. 15 Inordinately long trials result in
miscarriage of justice and involve a lot of expenses. Thus provisions have been made in CPC to
ensure that disputes are settled quickly and no unnecessary delay is caused.

(a) Summons to Defendant:

According to Section 27, CPC, the summons to the defendant must be sent within thirty
days of institution of suit. The 1999 amendment fixed the time limit so that there is no delay in
hearing the dispute. Order VIII, Rule 1 prescribes the limitation period for the defendant to file a
written statement. It was amended by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976
(hereinafter 1976 amendment) and further in 2002.16 The 1976 amendment made the provisions
of the rule mandatory while the 2002 amendment prescribed a limit of thirty days to file the
written statement. The second proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 1, Order V, which is the same as the
proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII, gives the court the discretion to increase the time limit, after
recording the reasons in writing, if the defendant fails to file a statement within thirty days but
the date should not exceed 90 days from the date of issuing summons. Section 148 of CPC
empowers the court to extend the time for an action if the original fixed period has expired. But a
limit of thirty days was added to the extended time was added by the 1999 amendment. The court
has been given the discretion to increase the time despite the limit prescribed by CPC. Though it
appears self-contradictory, it is the inherent power of the court under section 151 to take certain
steps to deliver justice.

(b) Adjournments:
The 1999 amendment also substituted sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 in Order XVII where the
number of adjournments that a court can grant have been restricted to three. Sub-rule (2) was

12
Law Commission of India, Reform of Judicial Administration (14th Report, vol 1, 1958) 129.
13
Law Commission of India, On the Role of Civil Procedure (54th Report, February 1973).
14
Law Commission of India, Delay and Arrears in Trial Courts (77th Report, November 1978).
15
Ramrameshwari Devi v Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249.
16
By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2002.

5
also amended allowing the court to award adjournment costs as well as higher costs if it thinks
fit. So exemplary costs may be awarded if a party hinders the trial by seeking repeated
adjournments. Rule 4 of Order XIV was amended for limiting the court’s discretion by fixing the
time beyond which it could not grant adjournment for examining the witnesses before issues
were framed. The importance of speedy trial can be gauged from the fact that seeking
adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses will amount to misconduct on the
advocate’s part.17 Rule 5 was omitted to allow quick framing of issues.18

(c) Costs:
Section 35 of CPC provides for awarding costs of litigation. It is the court’s discretion to
award costs depending on equity, moral and legal merits and other factors like the conduct of the
parties during litigation.19 Extended proceedings lead to the award of heavy costs.20 Efforts to
mislead the court by filing wrong statements attract imposition of exemplary costs. 21 No appeal
lies against an order for costs if the court has exercised its discretion sensibly and there is no
question of principle involved.22 To prevent people from filing frivolous claims, Section 35A
provides for awarding compensatory costs. The 1976 amendment excluded the application of this
section to revisions. It also inserted Section 35B which empowers the court to impose costs on
parties responsible for delaying the trial at any stage. Payment of the costs is a condition
precedent for further prosecution of the suit.

(d) Summary Trials:

Another provision that aims at providing speedy disposal of cases is summary trials under
Order XXXVII. In certain cases, if the court feels that the defendant does not have a genuine
claim and is delaying the matter, it can pass an order without letting him defend himself. He can
do so only with the court’s permission and after filing an affidavit stating that the plaintiff must

17
NG Dastane v Shrikant S Shivde AIR 2001 SC 2028.
18
The Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1999, s 24.
19
A Yousuf v Sowramma AIR 1971 Ker 261.
20
Rasaraj Debnath v Calcutta University AIR 1998 Gau 112.
21
Mahendra Baburao Mahadik v Subhash Krishna Kumaar AIR 2005 SC 1794.
22
Hill v Peel 1870 LR 5 CP 172; Indian Bank v M/s Mocro Electronics AIR 2005 AP 328.

6
prove the case against him. Summary trials were introduced for speedy disposal of cases
involving the recovery of money where the defendant did not have a strong case.

B. RES JUDICATA

The rule of res judicata is based on two principles: (i) no person should be troubled twice
for one and the same cause (ii) it is in the interest of the State that there should be end of
lawsuit. 23 This doctrine aims at preventing the abuse of law by any party. If a party raises
different pleas at each stage of the proceedings, it will result in a multiplicity of suits. To ensure
fairness in the procedure, a party should be allowed to raise all the pleas in the proceedings when
the action is initiated. For res judicata to operate, the subject matter of the suit should be ‘directly
and substantially’ same in both the suits. The parties to the suit should be the same and the
subject matter should have been finally decided in the previous suit by a court that was
competent to try the suit.

The rule of res judicata is embodied in Section 11 of CPC. The 1976 amendment added
explanations VII and VIII to the section. Before these explanations were added, the provisions of
this section did not apply to execution proceedings. But explanation VII provides for the
application of not only res judicata but also constructive res judicata to execution proceedings.
Prior to the insertion of explanation VIII, a judgment of a competent court did not operate as res
judicata in subsequent suits if it had limited jurisdiction. But the 1976 amendment changed this
and allows for the judgment of a court of limited jurisdiction, that is competent to hear the suit,
to operate as res judicata despite the fact that the court of limited jurisdiction was not competent
to hear the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issues were subsequently raised.24

The purpose of the amendment was to enlarge the scope of Section 11. Otherwise, there
would have been continuous litigation thereby adding to the number of cases in the already
burdened judiciary and the object of the doctrine would have been defeated.

23
Based on the maxims nemo debit lis vexari pro una et eadem causa and interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium
respectively.
24
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s 11, expln VIII.

7
 C. ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Litigation entails high costs that are very difficult for the poor to meet. Our Constitution
castes a duty upon the state to ensure that no one is denied access to justice due to a weak
economic background. It is the duty of the state to provide free legal aid to people who otherwise
cannot afford a lawyer.25 The court has to inform the accused about his rights and which forum
to approach. To give legal aid a nationwide framework, the Legal Services Authorities Act was
enacted in 1987.

To ensure that poor people have the means to justice, Order XXXIIIA of CPC deals with
‘suits by indigent persons’ and Order XXXXIV with ‘appeals by indigent persons.’ Such
persons are exempted from paying the court fee at the first instance. A person cannot be denied
access to justice just because he cannot pay the court fee.26 The concept has been illustrated in
Union Bank of India v Khader International Construction.27 These provisions were inserted by
the 1976 amendment and are aimed at securing social justice. They cannot be called unfair since
they amount to a deferred payment of the court fee. The state will take steps to recover the court
fee and this court fee shall be ‘a first charge on the subject matter of the suit.’28

D. SPECIAL PROVISIONS REGARDING FAMILY DISPUTES

Order XXXIIA of CPC states the provisions regarding family disputes and calls for a
different approach to settle family matters. Since such disputes concern human relationships and
are very sensitive, family courts have been established to hear them. Any order or decree passed
by a family court, except under Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, will have the
same effect as if passed by a civil court and shall be executed according to the provisions of
CPC.29 The 1999 amendment inserted Section 8930 which provides for alternate mechanisms for
resolving disputes outside the court. The court can, after framing the issues, refer the dispute for
settlement by way of arbitration or mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement or through Lok

25
Constitution of India 1949, art 39A.
26
AA Haja Muniuddin v Indian Railways (1992) 4 SCC 736.
27
(2001) 5 SCC 22.
28
ibid. Position reiterated in RV Dev v Chief Secretary, Govt. of Kerela (2007) 5 SCC 698.
29
The Family Courts Act 1984, s 18(1).
30
Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1999, s 7.

8
Adalats. If these methods fail to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties, then that
they should approach the court.

Though tenets of fair trial require the proceedings to be open and public, family disputes
are an exception and may be held in-camera if the family court and either party so desires.31
Proviso to Section 153B of CPC was inserted by the 1999 amendment which provides that a
judge may order any person or public in general to not be present during the proceedings. The
object of these provisions is to ensure that sensitive family matters are not argued in public as it
can have an adverse effect on the partied in the society. The importance of in-camera
proceedings in such cases has been discussed in Janaki Ballav v Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd.32
Thus CPC realizes the delicate nature of family issues and deals with them differently.

E. SPECIAL PROVISIONS REGARDING WOMEN

Certain provisions in CPC were made effective to deal with matters concerning women.
Section 56 prohibits the arrest or detention of a woman in civil prison in execution of a money
decree. 33 It also applies to arrests made before judgment. That means a woman cannot be
arrested or detained in a civil prison under Order XXXVIII, Rule 1 if she is a defendant in a suit
for the recovery of money. 34 These special provisions do not violate the right to equality. Article
15 of the Constitution prevents discriminatory treatment but not protective treatment favourable
to women. 35 Article 15(3) enables such provisions to be made for women notwithstanding
article 15(1). 36 In addition to this, Section 132 exempts those women who are prohibited by
customs and manners of the country to appear in public from personal attendance in court.

31
The Family Courts Act 1984, s 11.
32
AIR 1989 Ori 225.
33
See Jiwandas v Janaki AIR 1922 Nag 98; M/s Chelsea Mills v M/s Chorus Girl Inc AIR 1991 Del 129.
34
M/s Chelsea Mills v M/s Chorus Girl Inc AIR 1991 Del 129.
35
Universal Periodic Review, available at < http://www.upr-
info.org/IMG/pdf/a_hrc_wg.6_13_ind_1_india_annexii.pdf> last accessed 13 February 2014.
36
Preeti Srivastava (Dr) v State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 7 SCC 120.

9
 F. HUMANIST APPROACH
The CPC is not merely based on the black letter of law and procedure. It takes into
account humanist perspective while charting out the procedure. For example, Section 60 that
deals with the property that is liable to attachment in the execution of a decree exempts certain
kinds of property from attachment. The 1976 amendment made two significant changes to the
section. It amended clause (c) of sub-section (1) to include houses and buildings of labourers,
agriculturalists and servants to be exempted from attachment. Next, it inserted clauses (ka), (kb)
and (kc) thereby exempting deposits under the Public Provident Funds Act, 1968, life insurance
policies and those tenancies of residential buildings to which rent controls laws apply
respectively from attachment. The distinction between the salaries of government or local or
railway employees and private employees has been removed. Cattle and other tools used by an
agriculturalist to earn his livelihood cannot be attached. These provisions are based on
reasonable and equitable grounds. The fundamental right to life includes right to livelihood.
Therefore, attachment of such property will defeat the purpose of providing social and economic
security to the citizens.

If the court feels that the evidence of a witness who is in prison is material to the
proceedings, it can call for the attendance of the prisoner under Order XVIA. Rules 1-7 of the
order elucidate the provisions using which the court can ask for the attendance of witnesses in
prisons. Thus a prisoner is not precluded from the process of justice if he has an important role to
play in the proceedings.

10
 CONCLUSION

Ever since the enactment of CPC, a lot of effort and scrutiny have gone into increasing its
efficacy. The amendments have always aimed at rationalizing the civil litigation system and
make it justice oriented. However, there have been concerns about the amended provisions. It is
argued that the amendments have not completely removed the irregularities and have added to
the ambiguity.37 For example, the 1999 amendment to Section 100A raised apprehensions since
it disallowed appeal from the decision of a single-judge bench of the High Court in a proceeding
under article 226 or 227. It was viewed as a measure barring the aggrieved party to further
approach the court for settling the dispute. The later amendment however rectified this and
provides the option of appealing to the Division Bench against an order of the single-judge
bench. The lawyers challenged the thirty days limit set by the 1999 amendment upon the
defendant to file a reply to the summons. The 2002 amendment increased the time to ninety days
with reasons to be recorded in writing. Another change that raised doubts among legal luminaries
was the 199 amendment to Section 89. It was argued that the section did not clarify that if the
parties were to opt for any of the alternate procedures for settlement of disputes, then which
among the four- arbitration, mediation, conciliation or Lok Adalat- will be adopted in a certain
case and why.38

Though there have been apprehensions about the efficacy of the provisions of CPC, it
cannot be completely denied that the steps taken have yielded results to some extent. Procedural
lethargy has reduced, though not significantly. The provisions have been helpful in providing
expeditious relief in certain cases. Special forum for family disputes has reduced the number of
cases reaching the ordinary civil courts, thereby reducing the burgeoning backlog of cases to
some degree. Free legal aid is being given people who cannot afford the services of a lawyer.
While positive measures have been taken, the concerns of the legal scholars and professionals
need to be addressed in order to increase the effectiveness of the CPC and make it more justice
oriented and simplified.

37
See V Venkatesan, ‘Trial and Execution’ Frontline (Vol 19, Issue 14, July 2002).
38
PM Bakshi, ‘Comments on CPC Amendment (1999 and 2000)’ The Indian Council of Arbitration
<http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/quterli/apr-june2002/ica3.html> accessed 13 February 2014.

11
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF BOOKS

1. Dr. Tripathi TP, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (2nd edn, Allahabad Law Agency
Publications, 2008).
2. Jain MP and Jain SN, Principles of Administrative Law (4th edn, Wadhwa and Company,
Agra Nagpur 2002).
3. Mallick MR, Ganguly’s Civil Court: Practice and Procedure (13th edn, Eastern Law
House 2005).
4. -- P Ramanathan Iyer’s Cross Examination: Principles and Precedents (4th edn, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2011).
5. Sarkar S and Manohar VR, Sarkar Code of Civil Procedure (9th edn, vol 1, Wadhwa and
Company 2000).
6. Sathe SP, Administrative Law (7th edin, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 4th
reprint 2009).

LIST OF CASES

1. A Yousuf v Sowramma All India Reporter, Kerela High Court, 1971.

2. AA Haja Muniuddin v Indian Railways Supreme Court Cases, 1992.
3. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT, West Bengal All India Reporter, Supreme Court of
India, 1955.
4. East India Commercial Co. v Collector of Customs All India Reporter, 1962.
5. Hill v Peel 1870.
6. Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar All India Reporter, Supreme Court of India, 1979.

7. Indian Bank v M/s Mocro Electronics All India Reporter, Andhra Pradesh High Court,
2005.
8. Janaki Ballav v Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd. All India Reporter, Orissa High Court, 1989.

12
9. Jiwandas v Janaki All India Reporter, Nagpur High Court, 1922.
10. M/s Chelsea Mills v M/s Chorus Girl Inc All India Reporter, Delhi High Court, 1991.
11. M/s Mehta, Parikh & Co. v CIT, Bombay All India Reporter, Supreme Court of India,
1955.
12. Mahendra Baburao Mahadik v Subhash Krishna Kumaar All India Reporter, Supreme
Court of India 2005.
13. Municipal Board v State Transport Authority All India Reporter, 1965.
14. NG Dastane v Shrikant S Shivde All India Reporter, Supreme Court of India, 2001.
15. Preeti Srivastava (Dr) v State of Madhya Pradesh Supreme Court Cases, 1999.
16. RV Dev v Chief Secretary, Govt. of Kerela Supreme Court Cases, 2007.
17. Ramrameshwari Devi v Nirmala Devi Supreme Court Cases, 2011.
18. Rasaraj Debnath v Calcutta University All India Reporter, Gauhati High Court, 1998.
19. Sangram Singh v Election Tribunal, Kotah All India Reporter, Supreme Court of India,
1955.
20. Union Bank of India v Khader International Construction Supreme Court Cases, 2001.

LIST OF ARTICLES

1. PM Bakshi, ‘Comments on CPC Amendment (1999 and 2000)’ The Indian Council of
Arbitration. Available at <http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/quterli/apr-june2002/ica3.html>
2. Press Trust of India, ‘Right to Speedy Trial a Constitutional Right: SC.’ Available at
<http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Right+to+speedy+trial+a+constitutional+right:+SC/1/1
1270.html>
3. Rahman A , ‘Proceedings-In-Camera’ (2) JTRI Journal (First Year) 1995.
4. Venkatesan V, ‘Trial and Execution’ Frontline (Vol 19, Issue 14, July 2002).
5. Universal Periodic Review. Available at < http://www.upr-
info.org/IMG/pdf/a_hrc_wg.6_13_ind_1_india_annexii.pdf>.

13
LIST OF STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1949.

2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. The Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976.
4. The Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999.
5. The Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002.
6. The Family Courts Act, 1984.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

1. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

LAW COMMISSION REPORTS

1. Law Commission of India, Reform of Judicial Administration (14th Report, vol 1, 1958).
2. Law Commission of India, On the Role of Civil Procedure (54th Report, February 1973).
3. Law Commission of India, Delay and Arrears in Trial Courts (77th Report, November
1978).

14