NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

END-TERM PROJECT

TOPIC- MONEY SUIT UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

SUBMITTED TO
Prof. Amit Pratap Singh

SUBMITTED BY
Amitabh Abhijit
Roll Number- 2019BALLB112

Page 1 of 17
 Table of Contents

Certificate...................................................................................................................................4
Acknowledgement......................................................................................................................5
Project Synopsis.........................................................................................................................6
Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................................6
Objectives of Study................................................................................................................6
Research Questions................................................................................................................6
Method of Study.....................................................................................................................6
Hypothesis..............................................................................................................................6
Review of Literature...............................................................................................................6
Abstract......................................................................................................................................8
I. The Significance behind Recovery of Money....................................................................9
II. The Nuances of a Money Suit...........................................................................................10
1. State Amendments to Order IV Rule 2:........................................................................10
2. Cause of Action and Limitations:.................................................................................10
3. The Issue of Delay........................................................................................................11
III. Viable alternatives to Money Suit.................................................................................12
1. Summary Suits: -...........................................................................................................12
2. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: -....................................................................12
IV. Case Study: Seth Loonkaran Sethiya v. Ivan E John....................................................14
V. Execution of a decree in a Money Suit.............................................................................16
VI. Concluding Analysis.....................................................................................................17
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................19

Page 2 of 17
 Certificate

This is to certify that the research paper titled “Money Suit under The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908” has been prepared and submitted by Amitabh Abhijit who is currently
pursuing his BA LLB(Hons.) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfilment of
the “Civil Procedure Code” course in his fifth semester. It is also certified that this is an
original research report and this paper has not been submitted to any other university, nor
published in any journal.

Page 3 of 17
 Acknowledgement

This project has been made possible by the unconditional help and support of many people. I
would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Professor Amit Pratap
Singh for guiding me throughout the development of this paper into a coherent whole by
providing helpful insights and sharing her brilliant expertise. I would also like to thank the
officials of the Gyan Mandir, National Law Institute University, for providing me with
online resources and the means to access them. I am deeply indebted to my parents, seniors
and friends for all the moral support and encouragement.

Page 4 of 17
 Project Synopsis

Statement of the Problem: What is the purpose of a ‘Money Suit’ instituted under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908?

Objectives of Study:

 To understand the essentials of a money suit instituted under Order IV of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
 To assess the relevance and significance of a money suit in light of its viable alternatives.
 To examine the practical aspects of a money suit through the means of a case analysis.

Research Questions:

 What are the nuances of a recovery of money suit instituted under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908?
 What are the alternatives available to a creditor/claimant who would like to recover their
dues in a speedy manner?

Method of Study: The method of research work is doctrinal, descriptive and analytical in nature.

Hypothesis: The principle behind a money suit is a reasonable and logical one as it propounds that
one cannot be put in a disadvantaged position by someone else who had a transaction of equivalent
exchange with the creditor. However, money suits, in practice, are not the most efficient way for
someone to recover their dues anymore as the Courts have been plagued with pending litigation.
Therefore, the creditors/claimants must resort to alternative options that may serve their needs.

Review of Literature:

 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, accessed through this link: The Code of Civil Procedure
itself is the primary source anyone must refer to when dealing with a contention surrounding
civil suits. While Order VII Rule 2 provides the definition of money suits under the Civil
Law in India, the Code also provides for amendments to it that are State-Specific.
Additionally, it also provides for Order XXXVII which relates to a summary suit that
happens to be a viable alternative to a money suit.

Page 5 of 17
 Seth Loonkaran Sethiya v. Ivan E John, (1977) 1 SCC 379, accessed through SCC
Online: This scholarly report was published in 1998 and has been largely considered to be
the ‘advent of corporate governance in India’ given that there was a formal committee that
had genuinely provided recommendations for the Companies as well as the regulatory
authorities like SEBI.

 Recovery of Money Dues and Its Procedure under Civil Law, by Vishal Wason: This
research article acts as a secondary source and it is an all-encompassing piece of literature
on the nuances surrounding a recovery of money suit as it not only deals with the concept
and the role of various authorities but also provides for case studies in context which help in
explaining the concept further.

Page 6 of 17
 Abstract

A ‘Money Suit’ under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) refers to a civil suit instituted
under Order IV of the CPC to a Court of competent jurisdiction for recovery of the
plaintiff/claimant’s money. Subsequently, it is also known as a ‘Recovery of Money Suit’. Given the
compensatory nature of suits instituted under the CPC, it seems to be a rather fitting instance. In
this research paper, the author will delve into the details of the procedural aspect of a suit
instituted under the CPC for recovery of money. In terms of subjective analysis, the author will
highlight the necessity for the existence of such an action as a civil remedy.

The primal issue of delay with money suits will also be explored in this research paper. In this view,
the author will also lay out the instrumental role of Order XXXVII of the CPC and the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in providing speedy justice to the claimant/creditor. Lastly, a case
study will be done in order to understand how recovery of money through a civil suit plays out in
the Court of law before understanding how the execution of a money suit decree takes place.

Prima facie, the very concept of a money suit seems simple and straightforward, however, when
one attempts to interpret a law or a concept related to the same, and analyze various of its aspects,
the complexity thereof becomes much more apparent and can lead to a thorough research outlining
its major elements.

Page 7 of 17
 I. The Significance behind Recovery of Money

In our world, it is rather unfortunate that people sometimes choose not to honour their
obligations which eventually leads to a major issue for their creditors as they have been
cheated of their hard-earned money. However, sometimes these ‘defaulters’ are plagued by
troublesome situations due to which they haven’t been able to pay their dues back to the
creditor, despite honest intentions.

Nevertheless, what can be understood under the realm of civil law in India is that whenever
there is a dispute, there must be a just and fair way of resolving it. Therefore, if a dispute
pertaining to a money arises between a creditor and a defaulter, in that the defaulter has failed
to pay his/her dues to the creditor, the creditor may institute a suit under the CPC for recovery
of his/her money from the defaulter by way of a Court-assigned decree. This is the essence of
a money suit instituted under the CPC.

Such a dispute is all-inclusive and can relate to money is any form such as loans, unpaid
arrears, damages, mesne profits and so on. For instance, if A is an institutional bank and lends
money to B for a period of 5 years with interest, there is the presumption that B would pay
back the loan within the specified time. If B fails to do so, among many other options, A has
an option to institute a suit under Order IV 1of the CPC for recovery of the amount and if and
when the Court rules in their favor, B will have to comply with the terms of the decree and
may even have to compensate for the delay in payment.

Alternatively, a suit for recovery of money holds good even if the defaulter has passed away
without fulfilling his/her obligations. Thus, the law still strives to compensate the creditor
even though the options for them may seem to be relatively limited. It is, however, important
to note that with the existence of collaterals as an explicit term in loan agreements, such suits
have reduced and are only instituted in rare cases when the principal amount exceeds the
provided collateral’s value in monetary terms.

While a money suit may as well be like any other suit and could even be described as a
‘blanket action’ for more specific causes of action such as a suit for recovery of rent, it does
reinforce a very important principle in civil law in India, that of recovery. The need for
recovery stems from the Doctrine of Restitution 2of the law of contracts wherein a person
who breaches his/her obligations is made to compensate the aggrieved person so as to put
them in a position similar to what they had been in, had the transaction never happened. In
fact, in certain cases, the Court of law even compensates the aggrieved in cases where there
may have been undue delay (a known disadvantage of money suits). What can be gathered
from the essence of a money suit is that it reinforces one of the most important and basic
principles surrounding the CPC in India, that is recovery of money to the creditor.

1
Order IV, Institution of Suits, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2
Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Page 8 of 17
 II. The Nuances of a Money Suit

A money suit has been defined under Order VII, Rule 2 of the CPC 3as a suit where the
plaintiff seeks recovery of money and shall state the precise amount claimed by them through
the suit. Alternatively, it also provides for a situation wherein the plaintiff is not aware of the
exact amount of their unsettled debts for amounts pertaining to mesne profits and other
amounts such as loans which the plaintiff cannot, after a reasonable effort and diligence,
estimate exactly. In this view, an approximate amount of the value sued for must be provided
in the plaint by the plaintiff.

1. State Amendments to Order IV Rule 2:

However, the provision in CPC has been subjected to amendments by various States and
Union Territories around India. Firstly, in Karnataka, the provision of Order VII Rule 2 has
been substituted and it also provides that wherever a plaintiff seeks recovery of money the
plaintiff shall state the precise amount claimed. The difference arises in its further wordings
wherein it states that “wherever a statement of account or a memorandum of calculation is
necessary for the purpose, such statement or memorandum shall be set out in the schedule to
the plaint or separately annexed thereto”. In terms of unsettled dues such as mesne profits, the
provision, in effect, remains the same as it states that a reasonably approximate amount shall
be stated.

Secondly, in Delhi, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, in the second paragraph of the
provision, after the word “defendant” the phrasing provides an exhaustive list of elements
that are included within the ambit of a money suit. It adds the elements of debt and movable
property in possession of the defaulter that may not be calculable and thus a reasonable
estimate after exercising diligence shall be provided. It is rather interesting how both the
amendments have been made to fit the regional needs of these states so as to ensure
efficiency in the proceedings.

2. Cause of Action and Limitations:

Cause of Action in the CPC 4has been defined under Section 20 and refers to any fact that
needs to be produced before the Court of law so as to obtain a judgment. In the context of a
suit instituted for recovery of money, it would obviously arise from the non-payment of the
money sued for by the Plaintiff. In cases wherein the place of residence of the two parties are
different, the case may be filed at the place where the transaction took place.

3
Order VII, Rule 2, ‘In money suits’, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4
Section 20, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Page 9 of 17
 In terms of the limitation on a money suit, with respect to the Limitation Act of 19635, the
period subsists for three-years just like most civil suits. Thus, a person cannot raise a plaint in
the Civil Court once the limitation period of three years has passed and unfortunately, their
money may be lost. In this view, it is important to note that the Limitation Act only bars the
remedy and not the right but more often than not this bar may be enough to deny a person
their rightful claim.

The Law Commission in its 163rd report 6recommended that the amount or value of the
subject matter of the original suit in Section 102 of the CPC 7be raised from an amount of
Rs.25,000 to Rs.50,000. The reason behind this recommendation was that money suits are
comparatively simpler suits that are recognised and affirmed by the fact that the legislature
has thought it fit to enact Order XXXVII providing for summary procedure in many money
suits regardless of the monetary value thereof.

Additionally, trivial claims cannot be submitted to the Court as that would lead to utter
wastage of the already overburdened judiciary. While there is no standard for determining the
lowest amount a person can file a recovery of money suit for, through the interpretation of
settled principles in law, the Court is able to decide whether an amount is trivial or not.

3. The Issue of Delay

Like any other civil suit, a suit instituted for recovery of money is plagued with the issue of
unreasonable and undue delay as well. The cases run for years and sometimes even decades
before the claimants are able to recover their dues and at that time it becomes rather futile as
the objective is not exactly ‘achieved’. Unless there are circumstances wherein the Court of
law grants a sizeable sum as compensation, all the creditor’s truly done is wasted his/her
time.

This pendency stems from the excessive litigation in India which the Judiciary has not been
able to catch up. Among many other factors, the inefficiency of the way proceedings are
handled, countless further applications in a single civil suit, and the understaffed nature of the
Indian Courts are major reasons why litigation piles up, especially in civil cases.

However, in money suits there is a unique disadvantage to the claimant in the case of a delay
as he/she may end up losing more money in litigation fees than they have sued for and this
instance has taken place more than it should have. For instance, in the matter of
S.R.Vediappan vs S.P.Ramalingam8, the money suit was filed in 1998 and the condonation of
delay was only finally rejected by the Madras High Court in 2020 which means that the
claimant had been dragged along for over 20 years in this case.

5
The Limitation Act, 1963, Act No. 36 of 1963.
6
163rd Report on the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997, Published by the Law Commission of India,
November 1998.
7
Section 102, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
8
S.R.Vediappan vs S.P.Ramalingam, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 423.

Page 10 of 17
In this view, some efforts have in fact been made as after the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999 and Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, no second
appeal can lie before a high court even on a question of law unless the amount concerned in
the recovery of money suit exceeds Rs.25000.9 In fact, in the context of a Small Causes
Court, a first appeal cannot arise either unless the amount sued for exceeds Rs.10000. 10

III. Viable alternatives to Money Suit

As mentioned before, money suits or suits instituted for recovery of money are prone to
undue delays that may cause the claimant more harm than it would do good. In this view, it
becomes rather important for creditors to recover their dues and for defaulters to fulfil their
obligations in a manner that is efficient and ensures that justice is not delayed in such matters.
Keeping this idea in mind, the legal framework of India does actually have viable alternatives
to the money suit which may not be as time consuming and thus, actually turn out to be cost-
effective as well since the creditor will not be paying unnecessary legal fees.

1. Summary Suits: -

Summary Suits as provided under Order XXXVII of the CPC11 is an extremely efficient way
of handling suits including but not limited to recovery of money suits as it provides a
summary procedure which gets done away with in a quick manner. The real benefit of an
Order XXXVII suit is that unless the defaulter is able to demonstrate that he/she has a
substantial defense in his case, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to a judgment immediately. In
essence, it symbolizes the principle of speedy justice and especially in the case of money
suits where more often than not, the defaulter cannot substantially support his/her contentions
against non-payment of the money sued for.

In the matter of Neebha Kapoor v Jayantilal Khandwala12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India itself laid down that the underlying public policy behind an Order XXXVII suit is
“expeditious disposal of suits of commercial nature”. It provides for such disposal as quickly
as possible by prescribing time frame thereof.

However, it is important to note that under Rule 1, Sub-Rule 2 of Order XXXVII is only
applicable to suits based upon hundies, promissory notes, bills of exchange or the suits in
which a Plaintiff/Claimant has sought only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money
payable on a written contract, an enactment, where the sum to be recovered is a fixed sum of
money or in nature of any debt except penalty, a guarantee in respect of a debt or liquidated
demand.

9
Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
10
Section 102, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
11
Order XXXVII, Summary Suits, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
12
Neebha Kapoor v Jayantilal Khandwala, (2008) 3 SCC 770.

Page 11 of 17
 Nevertheless, an Order XXXVII suit remains to be one of the most instrumental tools in the
hands of a creditor who may be a potential plaintiff with the intention of instituting a civil
suit for the purpose of recovering any dues that may have been unpaid to him/her despite the
specified time or any reasonable time has passed.

2. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: -

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 13(“IBC”) is truly a progressive law enacted by
the Government of India and filled a very problematic vacuum pertaining recovery of money
in the realm of Corporate law. The very intention behind the enactment of the IBC was to
tackle the bad loan problems that were affecting the banking system.

Suffice it to say, the IBC process has revolutionized the dynamics between a debtor and a
creditor. One of it main features is that it provides for a procedure that is time-bound and
aimed at resolving insolvency in a matter of months. Basically, when there’s a default in
repayment of loans that is of an amount which satisfies the specifications of the IBC, the
creditors gain control of the debtor’s assets and must take decisions to resolve insolvency.

Companies “have to complete the entire insolvency exercise within 180 days under IBC. The
deadline may be extended if the creditors do not raise objections on the extension. For
smaller companies, including startups with an annual turnover of Rs 1 crore, the whole
exercise of insolvency must be completed in 90 days and the deadline can be extended by 45
days. If debt resolution doesn't happen the company goes for liquidation.”

Therefore, the IBC provides an extremely suitable alternative to money suits for creditors
who may have their dues unpaid from a body corporate. Even though it does not cover all
sorts of creditors, it does make things convenient for a large portion of them including
institutional investors who have their investments tied up in a company or a body corporate.

13
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Act No. 31 of 2016

Page 12 of 17
IV. Case Study: Seth Loonkaran Sethiya v. Ivan E John

 Citation: (1977) 1 SCC 379

 Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 416 of 1973 and 572 of 1974.
 Bench: Chief Justice A.N. Ray, M.H. Beg and Jaswant Singh, J.J.
 Appellant: Seth Loonkaran Sethiya and ors.
 Respondent: Ivan E. John and ors.
 Judgment Date: 20th October 1976
 Material Facts: Seth Loonkaran Sethiya, the plaintiff, was a financier in Agra, and
the respondents to the suit filed happened to be partners of a firm called John & Co. in
which they are grandchildren of the founder of the firm originally. This firm was
registered, but subsequently some changes in the ownership took place, changing its
structure. In 1947, the firm entered into a financial agreement, which was exhibited,
with the plaintiff’s organization among which other partners were involved. Through
a series of conditions, during which the plaintiff agreed upon the conditions through
which floating and prior charges would be applied to the date of agreement by which
he and his partners would gain access to all assets involved.

The plaintiff charged money suits on the basis of amount owed to him and his firm
against the various owners of John & Co., which saw the need for recovering funds
and describing himself as the sole proprietor of that company as well.

There were two sets of defendants who were involved with the case, specifically in
reference to the two notable times in which the proprietors had sought financial credit
from the plaintiff. These two sets constituted the plaintiff’s grievance in terms of the
facts that those who were owners were able to settle another debt that was taken
between the two agreements, which were established by the plaintiffs themselves.
They indicate the possible conditions that would be applied in terms of determining
the correct grounds of partnership and contracts.

 Issue(s) before the Court: Whether the business actions taken by the Respondents to
this case stood in violation of the Partnership Act 1932 and the Contract Act 1872,
and whether the Appellant would stand to receive sole proprietorship as per the
contract agreements made?

 Contentions of the Appellant: The Appellant made the following arguments in

highlighting the following claims:
i. Recovery of the total Rs. 21,11,500 must be allowed for the plaintiff with the
considerations of costs and pendent lite for the future sale of assets of John &
Co..
ii. Permanent injunction against defendants of the first set from committing any
breach of the agreement like they had done prior as claimed by the plaintiff.

Page 13 of 17
  Contentions of the Respondent: The respondents in both sets denied that there had
been no settlement of accounts as per the claims of the plaintiff with the implications
that the accounts had possible implications of fraud14, which meant that the entire
arrangement had been tainted as a result.

 Judgment: The judges decided to take a variety of considerations, first holding the
applicability of Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932 as being mandatory regarding
the dissolution of the plaintiff’s unregistered firm, and held that such an entire option
could not be brought according to this statutory detailed. This made the plaintiff’s
claim of the partner to hold no ground, and affect other notable aspects of the case. It
also led to the fact that the dissolution of the plaintiff’s firm constituted as a key factor
of contention by the defendants and the plaintiff regarding what information had been
exchanged to not hold a great deal of ground at all. This was according to Section 40
of the same Act15.

Meanwhile, Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872 found that material alterations had,
in fact, been made in unauthorized form16, which led to the entire materials of the said
contracts to become void. Thus, Suit No. 416 of 1973 instituted by the plaintiff was
rendered untenable and was liable to be dismissed while Suit No. 572 of 1974 was
allowed as the Court ruled that the goods on which the burden of charge was imposed
were sufficient to meet the liabilities of the Appellant and thus there was no need for a
personal decree of recovery.

 Ratio Decidendi: In a money suit for specific and ascertained sum, on finding of non-
settlement of account, the Court must either dismiss the suit or pass preliminary
decree for settlement of accounts affording full opportunity to the defendants. It was
further held that a Court cannot itself determine the amount due and pass a decree.

 Comments: It is pertinent to note that this case arises out of first appeals that were
instituted way back in 1954 and 1955 and thus, it is a perfect example of the issue of
delay in money suits. The parties have dragged on the issue for more than two
decades and may have ended up with a result that cannot be deemed satisfactory
anymore for either of the parties.

14
Section 69 of Partnership Act 1932 (No. 9 of 1932).
15
Section 40 of Partnership Act 1932.
16
Section 62 of Contract Act 1872 (No. 9 of 1872).

Page 14 of 17
 V. Execution of a decree in a Money Suit

The term ‘execution of decree’17 refers to the enforcement of a decree obtained by the
Plaintiff/creditor after the civil proceedings come to an end and the Court rules in his/her
favour. It is the final decision of the civil by virtue of which a decree-holder satisfies the
terms of a decree. In a case arising out of a money suit or the decree thereof, the execution is
not much different from execution proceedings of a decree pertaining to a suit for recovery of
money. However, what is the ‘signature’ feature of a decree involving money suit is that the
claimant receives the amount due to him/her from the defaulter only after the execution
proceeding has been completed and the Civil Court orders the satisfaction of the decree. In
other words, execution is the medium by which a claimant, acting in the capacity of a decree-
holder, makes the judgment-debtor (the defaulter) pay back the amount due to him/her.

It is important to note that the term “execution” has actually not been explicitly defined in the
CPC but is instead implied to mean the process for giving effect to the decree provided by the
Civil Court in any given case. The principles governing execution of decree and orders are
dealt with in Sections 36 to 74 and Order XXI of the CPC which happens to be the lengthiest
Order within the CPC. Order XXI deals with an exhaustive set of actions that pertain to the
execution of a decree including but not limited to the sale of movable and immovable
property and the resistance and delivery of possession.

In terms of a money suit, Order XXI, Rule 1 itself “provides for the modes of paying the
money decree. First of all, the Court should appropriate the amount towards interest, then
towards the costs and thereafter, towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is
indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment debtor while making the deposit and
intimating the decree holder of his intention.”

Once the execution proceedings come to an end, the creditor receives his/her repayment from
the judgment-debtor in a monetary form. However, due to the undue delay in money suit
proceedings, the recovery of dues is mostly not satisfactory to the creditor, though the Court
has sometimes rectified this issue by compensating the victim according to inflation or by
increasing the rate of interest on a debt. For instance, in the case of R.N. Bannad v. State
Bank of India18, the Karnataka High Court, while considering the losses suffered by the Bank
in the capacity of a creditor, granted six more quarterly instalments of payment in addition to
12 months of the same.

Since the execution of a decree arising from a money suit enables the plaintiff to put an end
to the litigation by enforcing the decree with the backing of the law with which the judgment-
debtor is obligated to comply, failing to do so will lead to the judgment-debtor being held in
contempt of court following which he/she shall be subjected to punitive measures such as
fine, imprisonment or any other penalty the Court may deem fit.
17
Order XXI, Executions, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
18
R.N. Bannad v. State Bank of India, AIR 1989 Kant 28.

Page 15 of 17
 VI. Concluding Analysis

The importance of recovery of dues has certainly risen with the times as the transactions
between people and the value thereof has increased. It would not be wrong to imply that
recovery of money forms the very basis of civil justice and thus its execution reflects on the
efficiency of the legal framework provided for it. In this context, it is rather unfortunate that a
money suit is not an ideal way for a creditor to reclaim their money from a defaulter. In fact,
the alternatives to a money suit have benefits that far outweigh the very necessity of a money
suit. Thus, its nature has turned very close to obsolete. Nevertheless, the blame of such wrong
implementation lies in the Indian Legal Framework’s objective to provide stellar justice no
matter what the cost.

Although, this principle followed by the Courts in India do not go well with the very essence
of a money suit. While the Judiciary’s strive to seek justice, even in a delayed process, may
as well be justified in the realm of criminal law and might even be necessary for cases that
pertain to serious offences such as murder, the same cannot be said for a money suit because
if the litigation costs alone overshoot the money claimed under the suit, then it becomes
pointless to pursue a suit against the defaulter.

Consequently, the benefits of a money suit can only be seen in a handful of cases where the
matter is adjudicated quickly and without any hassle so that the creditor is not at a position
worse than when he/she approached the Court. This is not the case with alternatives such as a
Summary Suit or an Insolvency resolution. These alternatives have, in fact, side-lined the
very need for a money suit in many cases and thus creditors prefer to file a suit under the
ambit of their relevant laws. These provisions have been framed with the concept of time
being a crucial factor so as to achieve speedy justice.

In this view, a recovery of money suit may be perceived as a stepping stone that gave way to
these alternatives by identifying the important predicament of pending litigation in cases
where time is of the essence and where the costs cannot be allowed to overtake the reward. It
is only logical that someone should not have to spend more to gain less. For instance, if A, in
the capacity of a creditor, instituted a money suit to recover an amount of Rs.50,000 in 2021
but the case dragged on till 2025 and A could execute the decree 4 years after he instituted
the suit, it would count as a ‘win’ only on paper, as in real life A would spent more in
litigation fee unless he/she was receiving legal aid.

Suffice it to say, the only problem with a money suit is its tendency to get delayed but it is
such a significant issue in such a situation that no reasonable person would prefer to pursue
their claims through the Court of law. This may be seen as a failure on the Judiciary’s part
but the truth is that the understaffed authorities do not deliberately prolong the proceedings.
At the same time, there doesn’t seem to be a genuine way of fixing the issue at hand either
simply because the load of pending cases is so much that the Courts may never catch up.

Page 16 of 17
 Bibliography

Primary Sources:
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, available at
https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1908-05.pdf.
 The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Act No. 31 of 2016, available at
https://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/TheInsolvencyandBankruptcyofIndia.pdf.
 Seth Loonkaran Sethiya v. Ivan E John, (1977) 1 SCC 379, accessed through SCC
Online.
 R.N. Bannad v. State Bank of India, AIR 1989 Kant 28, accessed through SCC Online
 Neebha Kapoor v Jayantilal Khandwala, (2008) 3 SCC 770, accessed through SCC
Online.
 S.R.Vediappan vs S.P.Ramalingam, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 423, accessed through
SCC Online.

Secondary Sources:
 163rd Report on the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997, Published by the Law
Commission of India, November 1998, available at
https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/old_reports/rpt163.pdf
 Recovery of Money Dues and Its Procedure under Civil Law, by Vishal Wason.

Page 17 of 17