 of a suit or other proceeding except where the order if it had been made in favor of the party applied for revolution would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. That means the high court in excess of revolution power will vary or reverse any order only if the condition that the order if it had been the other way about it would have disposed of the suit or other proceedings. Otherwise not of course, crucial power can be exercised in respect of interlocketry proceedings as well, but varying or reversing this is the criteria. Now this was not this was not alone the portion here a portion was deleted by the avenue which is that deleted portion. This order if it had been in favor of the party applying for revolution would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings there already in the province that was clause A of the province that there was a clause B which is the order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party, irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. This was deleted with the result that only if the three conditions are satisfied plus the order if it had been the other way about it would have disposed of the suit or other proceeding that condition also should be fully satisfied. Sorry that is the crux of the amendment that clause B was deleted what is the province and it was subject matter of discussion in Salem-Adukhet bar association is Salem 2 paragraph 40. Salem 2 paragraph 40 and Salem 2 paragraph 40. Let us see what is this paragraph 40 after stating what was contained in what section 115 did contain therefore said clause B stands to be dead. The question is about the constitutional powers of the high court in under article 227 on account of on account of permission made in section 115 of the court. The question stands settled by decision of this court in Surya Dev Raibkar versus Ramchandar Raib that is 2003 6 SCC 675. Holding that the power of the high court under article 206 and 227 of the constitution is always in addition to the constitutional jurisdiction. Confirmed on it curtailment of constitutional jurisdiction of the high court under section 150 does not take away or could not have taken away the constitutional jurisdiction the high court. The power exists untrammeled by the amendment in section 150 and is available to be exercised subject to rules of self discipline and practice which are all well said. What happened after the amendment? The purpose was to reduce the number of litigation. Reduce stagnation and the chance of people rushing to the high court at every stage and getting stay of the proceedings and attracting the trial of the police. That was the purpose laudable purpose. But what happened ultimately is that people started filing original petitions under article 227. So, even an adjelement petition that rejected a stage came people used to float to the high court, rush to the high court. Supreme court has mentioned that rules of self discipline is there and therefore only in exceptional cases the high court will exercise the power of revolution. But this power constitutional power under article 227 is not taken away by the amendment of section 100. And thereafter there is another decision of the Supreme Court which says that a red petition will not lie. That one view was that even a red can be filed to quash an order passed by the subordinate court later that was not accepted and the Supreme Court said that it is original petition not a petition. Now it is being numbered as OPC, OPCL or OTPerminal Water Rights. Now we go to the next portion section 148. What is section 148? 148 is enlargement of the period already grand. Enlargement of time. What are the conditions necessary? Where any period is fixed or granted by the court, granted by the court for doing any act prescribed or allowed by this the court made its discretion from time to time enlarge such period not exceeding 30 days in total even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. By the amendment this ceiling of 30 days in total is introduced. Before that it was not there any number of days the court could extend enlarge suppose there is a direction to deposit areas of red that was not deposited say one month's time was granted that time expired even there after what it could apply court could grant in the facts and circumstance of the case in appropriate cases the court could exercise the discretion of granting more time but that is curtailed by the amendment that the maximum period that can be granted under section 148 is 30 days. In total any number of times the court may extend but it should not in total go beyond 30 days. This is the amendment. Now how the court considered it? Salem 2 paragraph 41 to 43 court held that section 151 can be resolved. After that period of 30 days there is no provision that means there is a vacuum the court can exercise the power under section 151 inherent powers and extend the period if necessary in appropriate cases. This is what is held paragraph 41 to 43. Before amendment there was no restriction whether the court has no inherent power to extend the time beyond 30 days is the constitution. We have no doubt that the upper limit fixed in section 148 cannot take away the inherent power of the court to pass orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The rigid operation of the section would lead to absurdity. Section 151 has therefore to be allowed to operate fully extension beyond the maximum of 30 days thus can be permitted if that could not be performed within 30 days for reasons beyond the control of the party. This is what is held by the Supreme Court further down it is there I rent only the trucks of money. So that in appropriate cases the court can extend time and after this period in total 30 days is over the court retains the power under section 151 of the CPC. Next approach is order 5 rule 9 order 5 rule 9 order 5 is service of summons that underwent drastic change. Now courier service email personal service by the plaintiff against the defendant and all those things were introduced with all good purpose but some apprehensions were raised that courier service how it should be affected and all those things the Supreme Court in Salem 2 discuss the matter in paragraph 27 and 28 27 and 28 27 one sentence I will read the apprehension expressed is that service outside the normal procedure is likely to lead to false reports of service and passing of expatriate decrees this was forced the court said that there is appropriate checks and measures service non-service of summons has been the major causes of delay Supreme Court noticed court shall have to be very careful while dealing with a case where orders for team to service as required to be made on the base of the endorsement of such service or refusal by the courier. High courts can make appropriate rules firing of an affidavit was introduced that the defendant can be the I can be also the affidavit shall be in the language not to the defendant it can also be provided that if an affidavit or an endorsement as to service is found to be false the defendant can be summarily tried and punished for perjury and the courier company can be blacklist all these things were said so that sufficient protection high courts can make rules and some of the states it is working properly nowadays if you have in commercial transactions particularly between two business and or business groups or companies and all those things email and all those things are recognized methods but where the parties are peasants and workers in villages all these things may not work but sufficient safeguards are the otherwise personal services required the court can say that so flexibility is there now next is order 7 rule 11 what is order 7 rule 11 projection of plane salem 1 salem 1 paragraph 16 salem 1 i have mentioned 2003 decision the other is 2005 decision salem 1 paragraph 16 reject the plane there are clauses e and f added by the amendments and where it is not filed in duplicate plane shall be fined duplicate or where the plaintiff fails to comply with the approaches of all rule 9 of order 7 that is producing sufficient number of copies it appears to us that set clauses being procedure would not require the automatic rejection of plane at the first instance sufficient opportunity should be given if there is defect the court should order may be given opportunity of rectifying the defects etc in order 18 rule 4 i am sorry this is what is said order 7 rule now order 8 rule 1 order 8 is written statement order 8 rule 1 what happened in 99 99 it was provided by the 99 amendment it was provided that the written statement shall be filed within 30 days from the date of service of salem and the advocates mentioned i mentioned part one then there was discussion all throughout India and the central government was informed and this matter was considered again by the parliament and certain relaxations were made certain changes were made and reproduced and both these acts came into force on 17 2002 now what is order order 7 rule 11 which i mentioned order 7 rule 14 next order 7 rule 14 we will deal with it next what is order 7 rule 14 salem 2 paragraph 34 salem 2 paragraph 34 order 7 rule 14 order 7 rule 14 says that the plaintiff chart produce all the documents within his power along with the plane or within such time as the court prescribes and the penal consequences if it is not produced cannot be received in evidence all those things are stated in order 7 rule 14 now if you have got the CTC with you please take that order 7 rule 14 order 8 rule 1 i will come to it order 8 rule 1 we have already dealt order 7 rule 14 a document which ought to be produced in court by the plaintiff when the plaintiff is presented that document cannot be produced later nothing in this rule shall apply to documents produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witness or handed over to the witness merely to the freshest member this was considered by the supreme court and it is the objection was that there is a mistake in draft instead of the plaintiff's witness it must be defendant's witness and what is sent by the supreme court let us see order 7 rule 14 paragraph 34 and 35 in paragraph 35 last it is mentioned that paragraph 34 last it is evident that the words plaintiff witnesses have been mentioned as a result of a mistake that seems to have been committed by the legislature the words sought to be defendants ought to be the words ought to be defendant's witness there is a similar provision on rate rule 14 1 a 4 which applies to defend after stating so the supreme court said in paragraph 35 to avoid any confusion we direct that till the legislature corrects a mistake the words plaintiff's witness would be read as defendant's witness in order 7 rule 14 4 we however hope that the mistake would be expeditiously corrected by the legislature now I committed a mistake I started ordering rule 1 then I abruptly went to order 7 rule 14 that is because the it is serious area term I have mentioned therefore I had a doubt and confusion now we come to order 8 rule sorry for the difficulty cost to you order 8 rule 1 the amendment in 99 was that the return statement shall be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summits then when this objection was raised by the bar this parliament again considered it and the maximum time limit of 90 days was provided then the question arose what will happen after 90 days let us see what is 7 provided that present a return statement of defense within 30 days that is so that even now it is so provided that where the defendant fails to file the return statement within the set period of 30 days he shall be allowed to file the same on such a day as may be specified by the court for reasons to be recorded and right but which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summits not later than 90 days this created difficulty the question arose whether the court has power in a given case to accept the return statement which is filed beyond 90 days or whether court is bound to pass a decree if it is otherwise grantable taking it that there is no return statement this was the question considered and it is answered in paragraph 14 to 21 of serum 2 serum 2 14 to 21 let us see the relevant portion 14 to 21 very relevant portion otherwise there will be no time yes the question is whether the court has any power or jurisdiction to extend the period beyond 90 days the maximum period of 90 days to file the return statement has been provided but the consequence on failure to file the return statement in set period have not been provided for in orderly to what the point is for concern the point for consideration whether the provisions providing for maximum period of 90 days is mandatory and therefore the court is altogether powerless to extend the time even in exceptionally hard times this was the question considered along with this there is another portion which is to be considered order 8 rule 10 order 8 rule 10 order 8 rule 10 provides that where a party from a return statement is required under rule one or nine fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court the court shall pronounce the judgment against him or make such an order in relation to the suit as it seems fit so what is the consequence is also mentioned in all way rule 10 supreme court interpreted it meticulously supreme court said that it is not always necessary that when no return statement is filed within time if the plane should be as such decreed as if there is no defects it is not so the court may not appropriate case as such orders therefore there is flexibility and therefore it is only that not managed this is what is said in paragraph 21 in construing this portion support can also be had from order 8 rule 10 then further now in construing the portion of order 8 rule 1 and rule 10 the doctrine of harmonious construction is required to be applied required to be applied the effect would be that under rule 10 of order 8 the court in its discretion would have power to allow the defendant to find the return statement even after the expiry of the period of 90 days provided in order 8 rule 1 there is no restriction order 8 rule 10 that after the expiry of 90 days for that time cannot be granted there is no such restriction the court has wide power to make such an order in relation to the suit as it takes fit clearly therefore the provision of order 8 rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to find the return statement is directly exceptionally hard case is only in exceptionally hard case the court would grant it supreme court also took precaution and said that the courts will take and in paragraph 20 it is mentioned the word shall in by itself is not confused and the supreme court referred to three decisions of the supreme court in paragraph 17 18 and 19 one is a constitution bench decision the others are not and all these principles in 1965 supreme court 55 supreme court and 2002 supreme court were discussed in other paragraphs earlier paragraphs up to 20 so these are the provisions with respect to order 8 rule 10 rule 1 and I am taking it to some extent possibly because there are other portions also to be covered order 9 rule 5 fresh summons shall be taken if service is not affected fresh summons shall be taken by the plaintiff and it shall be done within seven days that is a portion order 9 rule 5 and that is discussed in Salem 2 paragraph 44 Salem 2 paragraph 44 yes the period of seven days mentioned in order 9 rule 5 is clearly directory conclusion is in one sentence discussion only one sentence the period of seven days in mentioned in order 9 rule 5 is clearly directly this is what is said by supreme therefore it is very clear that the court can always grant time in appropriate case next is order 11 rule 15 order 11 rule 15 serum 2 paragraph 45 the stipulation in order 1 order 11 rule 15 confining the inspection of documents at or before settlement of issues instead of at any time is also nothing but it does not mean that the inspection cannot be allowed after settlement inspection of document discovery and inspection is the heading of order 11 and there the court has power to direct a party to allow the other party to inspect documents and the party can do it and thereby avoid delay in disposal of the matters and there the restriction is which is sort to be introduced by 46 the stipulation that is at or before settlement that is said that it is only directly even after that next approach which is relevant is order 18 rule 2 order 18 rule 2 serum 2 paragraph 32 serum 2 paragraph 38 order 18 rule 2 4 which was inserted by act 104 or 76 has been omitted by act 46 of 99 it was introduced in 1976 by the aforementioned that was taken away in 99 under the said rule the court could direct or permit any party to examine any party or any witness at any stage so by deleting it what the parliament thought that the party is always rushed to the come to the court with a request to examine a party at a related stage and thereby the trial the process of trial is tracked now what the supreme court said before 76 it was not there that provision was not there what were the court doing the courts were allowing it in appropriate cases that position will continue even prior to the insertion of order 18 rule 2 4 such permission could be granted by the court in its discretion the provision was inserted in 1976 by the court the omission of rule 18 order 18 rule 2 4 by the 1999 amendment does not take away the court's inherent power to call for any witness at any stage either so motto or on the prior of a party invoking the inherent powers of the court order 18 rule 2 paragraph 32 order 18 rule 4 next is order 18 rule 4 Salem 1 this is very important order 18 rule 4 Salem 1 paragraph 17 to 19 17 to 19 Salem 2 5 to 12 paragraph 5 to 12 Salem 1 17 to 19 Salem 2 paragraph 5 to 12 I will read the relevant portion in Salem 2 now then thereafter I will go to the other portion this is very important and practical application 5 to 22 5 to 12 and the supreme court considered in Salem 2 not only order 18 rule 4 but considered order 18 rule 19 order 26 rule 4 4 A and certain other provisions because these are all interconnected the amendment provides rule 4 provides that in every case the examination in chief of a witness child beyond affidavit there is no difficulty the court has already been vested with the power to permit affidavits to be filed as evidence as provided in rule 19 of rules order 19 rules one and two of the court it has to be kept in view that the right of process examination pre-examination open court has not been disturbed by order 18 rule 4 inserted by the amendment therefore the court has a discretion affidavit can be insisted then the further the court said an apprehension was expressed by the lawyers that if a witness is summoned not produced by the party calling summoned by the court how can the affidavit be insisted the supreme court said in such cases the court may examine him allow the party to examine him in chief and cross there is nothing wrong and the scope of order 8 rule 4 has been examined by in Salem 1 there is also no question of inadmissible documents being read into evidence merely on account of such documents given as exhibit numbers in W 5 by the examination chief this is another apprehension examination chief practically verbatim reproduction of the plane and the document plus the documents which the plane reproduced an apprehension is raised that there may be inadmissible documents there may be unregistered documents which are inadmissible there are there are documents which are not sufficiently stamped even if registration is not required and such things may be there what will the court do if the affidavit is filed there also the supreme court said provided so to sub rule 2 of order 4 rule 8 clearly suggests that the court has to apply its mind to the facts of the case nature of allegation nature of evidence and importance to the particular witness for determining whether the witness and the examined in court or by the commissioner appointed by it and this it also said that inadmissible document being read nearly on account of such documents being given exhibit numbers in the affidavit file by of examinations further in Salem and to get associated one case it has been held that the trial court in appropriate case can permit the examination chief to be recorded so all these safeguards have been brought then the supreme court considered order 18 rule 5 please see order 18 rule 5 order 18 rule 5 says how evidence shall be taken in applicable cases on reading of rule 5 which was not touched by them and it is retained in the CPC even after of two amendments in 99 and 2002 what it says is that in applicable cases the evidence of each witness shall be taken down the language the court in writing or in the presence or under this personal direction and superintendents of the judge or from the dictation of the judge's directive on the calculator in the judge for reasons to be recorded so directs the record in that kind to be delivered so a judge's presence is always required by rule 5 so it was argued that there is a contradiction between rule 4 and rule 5 then the supreme court answered please see rule 19 of order 18 power to get statements recorded on commission there is such a conclusion order 26 rule 4 a supreme court considered along with this and to accept that in appropriate cases the court can issue commission i will rather read what the supreme court said only the important aspects in paragraph 7 amendment to order 18 rule 5 a and 5 b was read in sentences it is provided that in all appealable cases evidence shall be recorded by the court order 18 rule 4 was amended by the amendment act of 99 and again by amendment act of 2002 order 18 rule 4 3 enables the commissioners to record evidence in all types of cases including appealable cases the convention urge it is that there is a conflict between these provisions and that conflict was resolved by the supreme court that convention was resolved by the supreme court in paragraph 8 and 9 rule 19 was referred to power to get statements recorded on commission and he said in paragraph 8 that the aforesaid portion contains a non-upstanding clause it overrides order 18 rule 5 which provides the court to record evidence in all appealable cases the court is therefore empowered to appoint a commissioner for recording evidence in appealable cases as well further order 26 rule 4 a inserted by amendment act of 99 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the court may in the interest of justice or for expeditions disposed of the case or for any other reason issue a commission in any soap for the examination of any person resident in the local limits of the court's jurisdiction order 18 rule 19 order 18 rule 19 and order 26 rule 4 a in our view would override order 18 rule 5 a and b therefore these amend provisions which were introduced by the amendment will override rule 5 or 18 there is no conflict it will override then paragraph 10 next question has been raised about the power of the commissioner to declare a witness hostile there the solution is also mentioned paragraph 10 the direction to declare a witness hostile has not been conferred on the commissioner what should be done in such cases also mentioned the court court's order should be taken if a situation has to declaring a hostile witness arises before a commission recording evidence the party concerns shall have to obtain permission from the court under section 154 of the evidence act and it is only after grand or such permission that the commission can allow a party to cross examine this whole witness then in paragraph 12 it is mentioned how the original documents should be dealt with by the commissioner appointed to record what are all the things to be done so order 18 one of the major amendments in 99 and 2002 and the challenge therein not only on the ground of constitutionality but on the ground of inherent contradictions with some of the provisions already existing all resolved by the Supreme Court in Salem 192 order 18 next is order 18 rule 17 a order 18 rule 17 a and it is discussed in Salem 1 at paragraph 20 and 21 and in Salem 2 paragraph 30 let us see Salem 1 para 2021 and what is this amendment of 76 rule 17 a was inserted in order 18 which gave an opportunity to party abuse additional evidence under circumstances mentioned in such a provision was not there it was introduced in 76 by 76 7 supreme court asked what was the circumstances before 19 since what was the court doing before since court in appropriate cases could grant such a request now that is a possession in spite of deletion of that particular rule court still has power to grant it there are many if any is that available to anything and things are to adducing additional evidence prior to 76 would be available now and no more Salem 2 paragraph 13 what does it say reference is made to Salem 1 same thing is said court could had in inbuilt power to permit parties to produce evidence not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in spite of due diligence order 18 rule 17 a did not create a new right but only clarified the position therefore deletion of order 18 rule 17 does not decent title production of evidence at a later stage when a party satisfying the court that after it says some due diligence that evidence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced at the time of party was leading evidence the court may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage therefore the supreme court will solve that problem also next is adjournment order 17 Salem 2 paragraph 29 to 31 paragraph 29 to 31 supreme court said order 17 does not forbid grand of an injection adjournment where the circumstance are beyond the control of the court by the amendment the the court's power was restricted that maximum at the request of a party maximum adjournments can be granted at three only three times not more court said there may arise situations where it is necessary that is considered in paragraph 29 30 and 31 in paragraph 30 it is said so read order 17 does not forbid grand of an adjournment where the circumstance are beyond the control of a party in such a case there is no restriction on the number of adjournments to be granted further down for instance a party may be suddenly hospitalized on account of some serious ailment or there may be serious accident or some act of God leading to devastation if it cannot be said that though the circumstance may be beyond the control of the party further adjournment cannot be granted because of the restriction of three adjournments as provided in the proviso to order 17 one in some extreme cases it may become necessary to grant adjournment despite the fact that three adjournment have already been granted take the example Boppel gas tragedy Gujarat the earthquake and riots and devastation on account of tsunami ultimately it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case court has power that is what is it is not ideal to restrict cocktail the power of court should have powers whether it is excited to be exercised in a given case is a different thing it is in the description of the court the court will not go astray court is experienced court is legally trained and it is circumscribed the courts exercise of such power are all regulated by decisions of wonderful supreme court and various icons therefore that danger of the judicial office are going and say saying that I got unbridled powers it is not so court has powers and on the other hand if a registration restricts the powers you shall not do that you have no such power it is not good for the society what cannot be the legislature cannot foresee all the circumstances which may require it to be applied in a given case supreme court ascended paragraph 30 and 31 now corona supreme court extended their period of how many times all these cannot be foreseen therefore don't make a law which takes away the powers of the courts at all times whatever may be the circumstance you have no power beyond 30 days you cannot extend beyond 30 days written statement cannot be accepted after 90 days or a gentleman cannot be granted more than three times these are all such provisions in terror of it is not good for the society and that is why supreme court said while appointing a committee the creases are to be corrected ironed out creases are to be ironed out and that was done by the committee and that was considered by the supreme court in great detail and it was said that these are all directory these are mandatory these are not mandatory it can be applied in extreme cases court retains the power in spite of a particular portion being the it said that after the expiry of that period there is no portion written statement there were 148 extra time therefore the court can exercise the power under 151 who takes away the powers of the court under one civil court has that power criminal court does not have except the high court under 482 the subordinate criminal courts do not have the power which is akin to section 121 cpc many think that the civil courts does not have do not have powers he is not correct civil court has wide powers wide powers and the judgments and decrees of the civil courts will be bound its criminal court will be bound on the other hand civil court will not be bound by the judgment of the criminal court except that what is the result over all the parties what the court did that's all by the committee not the reasoning or other is next is order 41 rule 9 salem 1 paragraph 22 into 1 salem 1 paragraph 22 into 2 registry of memorandum of the old nine provided that of order 41 the court from whose decree and appeal lies shall attain a memorandum of appeal and shall endorse their own the deeper presentation and shall register the appeal in a book kept for that purpose such book called it shall be called the rest of appeal what was the intention of the legislature is nobody is nobody knows it probably the parliament thought that the appropriate portion must be made so that the parties difficulties can be avoided the if he is defeated in the trial court he can present the appeal in that court itself which is to be filed in a far away place maybe that but supreme court said that appeal is to be filed in the court where it is to be filed but all that is meant is that a copy of the appeal memorandum should be kept in the file of the trial court a copy should be provided to the trial that's all required nearly because a memorandum of appeal is not filed under order 41 rule 9 will not in our mind make the appeal filed before the appellate court a defective one only that is required that is that a copy should be that's all all firing in the appellate court otherwise firing in the trial court itself will not do good suppose urgent matter of stay is required what will the trial court do trial court has to transmit their accounts it will take time on the other hand if a trial court's business is rented and after getting copy the party can rush to the appellate court get an emergent order that will be taken away if this rule 9 is strictly compliant the appeal should be filed in the trial court itself but it is optional is all right but it is not so therefore supreme court interpreted like this now with that the complainant of these provisions important evidence and I hope yes five minutes to tell we can type because so thank you very much we'll meet again time permits on some other occasion with some other subject yes thank you as they say that it will continue the knowledge sharing the way you simplify things is just mesmerizing and the way you want to take things forward that is another thing to be understood and there are so many topics and so many things to be learned from you how to maintain balance between an active life how to simplify things and how to maintain that the session which you take forward is actually comes to an end within the time frame to understand the entire gamut of the topic and then bringing it narrowing down in a structured manner is a thing which can always be learned from you but as I say practice makes a man perfect and your heart of perfectionism in that aspect is too fascinating to be understood and followed you have made things so clear at least on the chat we don't have I will just check it out as to whether we have any question on the youtube okay it's only thank you coming forth so we part for the day today and we will have the sessions coming forth we are also starting a service law series with Mr. P. S. Raja Gopal where we will take around 15 sessions on different issues and same way we will be also taking a contract law series by Professor Milima Farfadi we will stay connected with us on the social media and needless to add we have already taken so many sessions with Justice Katie Sankaran and his sessions will continue we will discuss with Justice Katie Sankaran so that rather than taking topics here and there we will try to see that all things go in a chronological manner from now onwards everyone stay safe stay blessed and take precautions as somewhat some numbers of covid has also started increasing and they say the prevention is better than cure so keep on taking preventive measures and we the way we have been able to sail through we are quite sure that we will continue to survive and do betterment for the society and the most positive part of the these testing times were we have been able to connect with people like Justice Katie Sankaran who are full of knowledge and the most interesting part is that they are willing to share everyone stay safe again and stay blessed thank you thank you thank you Mr. Vikas and the buts thank you