Order [Sec.

2 (14)]
"Order' means the formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree. Thus,
the adjudication of a court which is not a decree is an order. As a general rule, an order by a
court of law is founded on objective consideration and as such the judicial order must contain
discussion of the question at issue and the reasons which prevailed with the court to pass the
order.

The adjudication of a court of law may either be a decree or an order, and cannot be both.
There are some common elements in both of them: both are 'formal expressions' of a decision
given by court, both are adjudications of a court of law, and, both relate to matters in
controversy.
The essence of distinction between a 'decree' and an 'order' seems to be in the nature of the
decision, rather than in the manner or expression. The question is one of substance whether
adjudication is a decree or order.
Distinction between Decree and Order
(i) A decree can only be passed in a suit which commenced by presentation of a plaint. An order may
originate from a suit by presentation of a plaint or may arise from a proceeding commenced by a
petition/application.
(ii) A decree is an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties with regard to all or
any of the matters in controversy. An order may or may not finally determine such rights.
(iii) A decree may be preliminary or final or partly preliminary and partly final. An order cannot be a
preliminary one.
(iv) Usually one decree is passed in a suit. But in case of suit or proceeding, a number of orders may be
passed.
(v) Every decree is appealable, unless otherwise expressly provided.
(vi) A first appeal invariably lies from a decree unless it is expressly provided viz. Sec. 96 (3) provides
that no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the court with the consent of the parties. Every
order is not appealable. Only those orders are appealable which are specified in the Code (Sec. 104
and O. 43, Rule 1).
(vii) A second appeal lies to the High Court on certain grounds from the decree passed in first appeal. No
second appeal lies in case of appealable orders.
Orders which amount to a decree:
• Order of abatement of suit,
• Order holding appeal not maintainable,
• Order discharging defendants for failure of the plaintiffs to furnish particulars (as it
amounts either to rejection of a plaint),
• Order dismissing a suit for non-payment of court-fee,
• Order dismissing cross-objection, etc.

Orders which do not amount to a decree

• Order of remand,
• Order granting interim relief,
• Order refusing stay,
• Order overruling a plea against the maintainability of a suit,
• Order rejecting memorandum of appeal for default in payment of court fee, etc.
Judgment [Sec. 2 (9)]
'Judgment' means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. 'Judge' means the
presiding officer of a civil court [Sec. 2 (8)]. Judgment provides the reasons (or grounds) for the passing
of the decree /order.

Every judgment other than a court of small cause should contain

(i) a concise statement of the case,
(ii) the points for determination,
(iii) the decision thereon, and
(iv) the reasons for such decision.

A judgment of a court of small cause may contain only point nos. (ii) and (iii).The sketchy orders which
are not self-contained and cannot be appreciated by the appellate or revisional court without examining
all the records are unsatisfactory and cannot be said to be judgment in proper sense (Gajraj Singh v
Deohu, 1951 A.L.J.R.). Thus, the judgment (even of a court of small cause) must be intelligible and must
show that the judge has applied his mind.

A Judge cannot merely say "Suit decreed" or "Suit dismissed. The whole process of reasoning has to be
set out for deciding the case one way or the other.
Judgment and decree- A comparison:

Judgment contemplates a stage prior to the passing of decree. After the pronouncement of
judgment the decree shall follow. This position of law is clearly reflected in Order 20 Rule 6 and
6A and 7. Rule 6 provides that the decree shall agree with the judgment. It clearly shows that
judgment comes first in point of time.

Further, Rule 6A and 7 provides that decree shall be drawn up within fifteen days from the date
on which the judgment is pronounced and the decree shall bear the date of the judgment
respectively. These provisions clearly show that the decree follow the judgment and not vice
versa. Judgment reflects the justification of the court in passing the decree in question. Decree,
on the other hand is the crystalisation of rights in the controversy between the parties as
declared by the court on the basis of judgment.
Legal Representative [Sec. 2 (11)]

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.

The term denotes classes of persons on whom the status of a representative is fastened by
reason of the death of a person whose estate they are held to represent. The expression 'legal
representative' is inclusive in character, its scope is very wide and over and above a person who
in law represents the estate of a deceased, it includes a person who intermeddles with the
estate of the deceased and the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party
suing or sued.
The following persons are held to be legal representatives –
executors, administrators, reversioners, Hindu coparceners, residuary legatee, and person in de
facto possession of the entire estate of the deceased.

The following persons are not legal representatives - trespassers, creditors, a succeeding
trustee, official assigned receiver, persons dealing in the ordinary course of business with goods
of the deceased received from another, persons who intervene merely for the purpose of
preserving the goods of the deceased or providing for his funeral or for immediate necessities
of his family, etc.

Administrators: A court-appointed person who manages the financial affairs of a deceased person. They organize the estate,
settle debts and expenses, and distribute assets according to the will or state laws. Administrators are similar to executors, but
are appointed by the court, not the deceased.
A reversioner is a person who has or is entitled to a reversion, or a vested right to a future estate. For example, if A grants land
to B for life, A has an interest in reversion because the land reverts to A when B dies.
A person who lets or sublets land to another retains an interest in reversion.
A residuary legatee is a person who inherits the remaining property of a deceased person after all other bequests, debts, and
taxes have been paid. The residuary legatee is named in a residuary clause or residuary bequest in the will.
A person in de facto possession is someone who has physical control of an object and the intention to exclude others from using
it, but this possession is not legally recognized. The term "de facto" is a Latin word that means "in fact"
Mesne Profits [Sec. 2 (12)]
'Mesne profits' of property means those profits by 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 person in wrongful possession.

The right to possession is a sacred right guaranteed to all law-abiding citizens. When a person
is deprived of his possession he is not only entitled to recover possession but also damages for
wrongful possession by another. The Mesne profits are compensation, which is penal in nature.
The object of awarding a decree for Mesne profits is to compensate the person who has been
kept out of possession and deprived of enjoyment of his property. Thus, 'wrongful' possession
of the defendant is the essence of a claim for Mesne profits.
Thus, in a suit for title and possession where the land is in occupation of tenant, Mesne profits
should be awarded on the basis of rent and not on the basis of the produce or value of the
property. Further, a person in wrongful possession is not liable for failure to realise the highest
possible rates of rent and premium, if a 'fair' (or reasonable) rent has been realised from the
land [Secy of State v Saroj Kumar (1935) 62 IA 53]. So, when a person in wrongful possession
plants indigo on the land and it is proved that a prudent agriculturist would have planted
sugarcane, wheat or tobacco, the Mesne profits should be assessed on the basis of those more
profitable crops (Harry Grey v Bhagumian AIR 1930 PC 82).

Mesne profits also include the right to interest on the profits. A trespasser, whether bonafide or
malafide, is liable to account for the profits which he makes and which he would have made
with ordinary diligence but not the profits derived by him due to improvements effected by him
e.g. digging a well. Mesne profits should be net profits. Thus, court may allow deductions on
account of land revenue, rent, cost of cultivation and reaping, the charges of collection of rent,
etc: The 'burden of proof of actual profits realised is on the person receiving and of profits
realizable on the person claiming the same