Validity of Multiple Preliminary Decrees in a Single Suit

A decree is the formal expression of adjudication of a dispute by a court of law. It conclusively determines the rights of parties involved in a dispute. Decrees can be preliminary or final. Usually, every suit incorporates one preliminary and one final decree. The position of law under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, insofar as it is concerned with the question of multiplicity of preliminary decrees in a single suit, seems to be ambiguous and unclear.

The provisions of the CPC do not expressly provide for more than one preliminary decree in a single suit, however, they also do not bar or prohibit the same as well. Due to such lack of clarity in the provisions of the statute itself, various courts of law in India have interpreted the provisions differently, so as to hold and propagate contravening views on the subject.

Multiple High Courts have laid down that there can be no more than one preliminary decree in a suit, while others have held that if the circumstances of the suit call for multiple such decrees, the same is permissible. This conflict of legal opinion needs careful consideration, so as to determine which line of legal reasoning is more logical and desirable in India.

What is a Preliminary Decree?

A preliminary decree can be seen as a decree which leads to the declaration of the rights and liabilities of the parties in the suit, but leaves out the actual result to be worked out in further proceedings. Thus it can be viewed as the stage in working out rights of parties which are left to be adjudicated through a final decree. A preliminary decree does not lead to the disposal of the suit, and the suit continues until a final decree is passed. The CPC provides for the passing of a preliminary decree in multiple types of suits.

Can there be more than one Preliminary Decrees in a Single Suit?

Ordinarily there can be one preliminary and one final decree in a single suit. However the question as to whether there can be exceptions to this rule needs consideration of authorities in this regard.

In Bharat Indu v. Yakub Hasan, the Allahabad High Court, while dealing with an appeal regarding a partition suit brought before them, held that the “Civil Procedure Code contemplates one preliminary decree and no more.” The Oudh Chief Court has also expressed a similar view in Kedarnath v. Pattu Lal, where it was held that the CPC does not provide for more than one preliminary decree.

In Joti Parshad v. Ganeshi Lal, a similar question as to the validity of a second preliminary decree was to be answered. Facts of the case inter alia included the judgement of the Supreme Court sending an appeal pertaining to a partition suit back to the trial court, holding that it was for the trial court to exercise its jurisdiction and pass a decree. The trial court passed a second preliminary decree. The matter was then brought before the Punjab & Haryana HC for adjudication. The court held that “Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while giving directions for determination of shares in their order…did not probably contemplate the passing of any more preliminary decree”, thus implying that a second preliminary decree would not be valid.

Therefore, the Allahabad and Punjab & Haryana High Court have clearly endorsed the view that there cannot be multiple preliminary decrees in a single suit. However, if we peruse various judgements of other High Courts, a contrary view seems to have gained ground.

In Peary Mohan Mookerjee v. ManoharMookerjee, the Calcutta High Court has expressed that there can be exceptions to the general rule of one preliminary and one final decree per suit and held that the suit before them was one such exception which required more than one preliminary decrees. In Parashuram Rajaram v. Hirabai Rajaram, the Bombay High Court expressed a similar view.

Likewise, in Kasi v. Ramanathan Chettiar, the Madras High Court also took a similar position on the said issue. The Court was to adjudicate upon a suit for taking of partnership accounts. Justice Patanjali Shastri went on to state that there could be instances, much like the present case, which would call for more than one preliminary decrees. Therefore, it was held that no inference could be drawn by the court that it did not have the power under the CPC to pass more than one preliminary decrees, especially in suits “involving multiplicity of claims and other complications.”

These decisions of the Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Court stand in contravention to the idea that there can be only one preliminary decree in a suit. They complicate the position of law in this regard and lead to ambiguity.

Position of Law with respect to Partition Suits

Insofar as partition suits are concerned, the Honorable Supreme Court has clarified the position of law regarding preliminary decrees in the landmark case of Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal. In the said case, the court observed that there was nothing in the CPC, which stipulated any kind of prohibition against passing of multiple preliminary decrees, provided that the circumstances of a suit call for and justify the same. However, in this case, the court made it clear that their judgement would only be applicable to partition suits and not to any other kinds of suits as they were not concerned with the same in the suit brought before them. Therefore, while in partition suits there can be multiple preliminary decrees, in other kinds of suits the position is still unclear, in light of the authorities discussed above.

Should the position of law regarding multiplicity of preliminary decrees in partition suits be applied to other kinds of suits as well?

The Supreme Court had refrained from commenting upon the validity of more than one preliminary decrees in suits other than those pertaining to partition. In Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal. The court had stated:

“We should…point out that what we are saying must be confined to partition suits, for we are not concerned in the present appeal with other kinds of suits…”

The words used by the court make it amply clear that it did not aim to say that there could not be multiple preliminary decrees in other kinds of suits, it merely recused itself from answering the position of law in this regard as the dispute before them only involved a partition suit.

Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that even in suits other than partition suits, a similar line of reasoning can be applied and it wouldn’t be contrary to the law of the land laid by the Supreme Court, to hold that there can be multiple preliminary decrees in other kinds of suits.

The views expressed by Justice Patanjali Shastri in this regard, in Kasi v. Ramanathan Chettiar seem to be helpful so as to reach a holistic and true construction and interpretation of the provisions of the CPC, where he emphasized that the important question to be answered is not that whether the CPC allows multiple preliminary decrees or not, rather it is that whether the CPC prohibits or bars more than one preliminary decree inter alia.

Clearly, upon due perusal of the provisions of the CPC, we find that there is no such bar or prohibition. Therefore, it seems reasonable to hold that if the circumstances of a case and various other factors require that more than one preliminary decree should be passed in a particular suit, then the courts must not hesitate to pass the same in furtherance of Justice and Equity, as the code itself doesn’t prohibit them from doing the same expressly or impliedly.

Conclusion

The jurisprudence revolving around the permissibility of multiple preliminary decrees in a single suit under the CPC is still evolving. While it cannot be claimed that the ambiguity and conflict pertaining to the same has been resolved, it can be said beyond a shadow of doubt that legal understanding and scope in this regard has expanded and transformed for the better.

We must understand that the Civil Procedure Code, being procedural law, exists to aid the implementation and functioning of substantive law. Therefore, to withhold justice from parties, by holding that there cannot be multiple preliminary decrees in a single suit, even when the circumstances require more than one such decrees, would amount to a situation where procedural law would end up hindering substantive law.

It is for the Legislature and the Judiciary to cure such infirmity and ambiguity. It is high time that it is expressly laid down, either through positive legislative action or through binding precedential law by the Apex Court, that while the general rule is that there can be only a single preliminary decree in a single suit, there can be certain exceptions to the same.