Power to state case for Court’s opinion
Full Text
(1) Parties claiming to be interested in the decision of any question of fact or law may enter into an agreement in writing stating such question in the form of a case for the opinion of the Court, and providing that, upon the finding of the Court with respect to such question,—
(a) a sum of money fixed by the parties or to be determined by the Court shall be paid by one of the parties to the other of them; or
(b) some property, movable or immovable, specified in the agreement, shall be delivered by one of the parties to the other of them; or
(c) one or more of the parties shall do, or refrain from doing, some other particular act specified in the agreement.
(2) Every case stated under this rule shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs, and shall concisely state such facts and specify such documents as may be necessary to enable the Court to decide the question raised thereby.
Plain English Summary
Enables consenting parties with an active legal dispute to state an agreed case on questions of fact or law for the binding opinion of the court, agreeing in advance to pay money, deliver property, or perform/refrain from acts based on the court's finding.
Key Legal Elements
- Written Agreement Required: Parties must execute a formal, mutual written agreement stating the precise questions.
- Substantive Remedies Contemplated: (a) Payment of money, (b) delivery of property, or (c) mandatory/prohibitory acts.
- Consecutively Numbered Paragraphs: Pleadings must be concisely drafted in numbered paragraphs with referenced documents.
- Friendly Action / Alternative to Adversarial Trial: Avoids prolonged contested trials where the dispute turns solely on construction of a document, statute, or settled facts.
- Interplay with Section 90 CPC: Order XXXVI Rule 1 operationalizes the substantive mandate of Section 90 CPC.
Practical Note
Foundations of Stating a Special Case: 1. Real vs Academic Controversy: In Chokalingam Chettiar v. Official Assignee (AIR 1943 PC 15) and Gopaldas v. Ram Ratan (AIR 1937 Nag 238), it was affirmed that Order XXXVI is meant for expeditious resolution of genuine, subsisting legal controversies. The court will refuse to entertain hypothetical, consultative, or academic questions where the parties seek free legal advisory without an actionable cause. 2. Concise Drafting Mandate: Under Sub-rule (2), facts must be settled without contradiction. If facts remain disputed or ambiguous, a special case is inappropriate, and the parties must be relegated to an ordinary civil suit.
हिंदी पाठ
(1) किसी तथ्य या विधि के प्रश्न के विनिश्चय में हितबद्ध होने का दावा करने वाले पक्षकार न्यायालय की राय के लिए ऐसे प्रश्न को मामले के रूप में अधिकथित करते हुए एक लिखित करार कर सकेंगे, और यह उपबंध कर सकेंगे कि ऐसे प्रश्न के संबंध में न्यायालय के निष्कर्ष पर—
(क) पक्षकारों द्वारा नियत की गई अथवा न्यायालय द्वारा अवधारित की जाने वाली कोई धनराशि पक्षकारों में से किसी एक द्वारा उनमें से दूसरे को संदत्त की जाएगी; अथवा
(ख) करार में विनिर्दिष्ट कोई चल या अचल संपत्ति पक्षकारों में से एक द्वारा दूसरे को परिदत्त की जाएगी; अथवा
(ग) पक्षकारों में से एक या अधिक पक्षकार करार में विनिर्दिष्ट कोई अन्य विशिष्ट कार्य करेंगे या करने से प्रविरत (Refrain) रहेंगे।
(2) इस नियम के अधीन अधिकथित प्रत्येक मामला क्रमवार संख्यांकित पैराग्राफों में विभाजित होगा, और उसमें ऐसे तथ्यों का संक्षेप में कथन होगा तथा ऐसे दस्तावेजों को विनिर्दिष्ट किया जाएगा जो न्यायालय को उठाए गए प्रश्न का विनिश्चय करने में समर्थ बनाने के लिए आवश्यक हों।