87B. Applications of Sections 85 and 86 to Rulers of former Indian States.—1[(1) In the case of any suit by or against the Ruler of any former Indian State which is based wholly or in part upon a cause of action which arose before the commencement of the Constitution or any proceeding arising out of such suit, the provisions of Section 85 and sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 86 shall apply in relation to such Ruler as they apply in relation to the Ruler of a foreign State.]

(2) In this Section-

(a) “Former Indian State”, means any such Indian State as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify for the purposes of this; 2[***]

3[(b) “Commencement of the Constitution” means the 26th day of January, 1950; and

(c) “Ruler” in relation to a former Indian State, has the same meaning as in article 363 of the Constitution.]

1. Substituted by Act No. 54 of 1972, for sub-section (1).

2. The word “and” omitted by Act No. 54 of 1972.

3. Substituted by Act No. 54 of 1972, for the former clause (b).


88. Where interpleader suit may be instituted.— Where two or more persons claim adversely to one another the same debts, sum of money or other property, movable or immovable, from another person, who claims no interest therein other than for charges or costs and who is ready to pay or deliver it to the rightful claimant, such other person may institute a suit of interpleader against all the claimants for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to the person to whom the payment or delivery shall be made and of obtaining indemnity for himself:

Provided that where any suit is pending in which the rights of all parties can properly be decided, no suit of interpleader shall be instituted.



case for opinion of C ARBITRATION

1[89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court.—(1) Where it appears to the court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for there observations and after receiving the observation of parties, the court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for

(a) arbitration; (b) conciliation;

(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or

(d) mediation.

(2) Where a dispute had been raferred

(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply asif the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation ware referred for selllment under the provisions of that act

(b) to Lok Afalat,the court shell refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accodrance With the provisions

of sub-section (1) of Sections 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987 and all other provisions of that act shell apply in respect of the dispute so referred ti the Look Adalat:

(c) for judicial settlement,the court shell refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act,1987 shall apply as if the dispute ware referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisiond of that act

(d) For mediation,the court shall effect a compromise bet ween the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.]

1.Sec. 89 was repealed by arbitration Act,1940 and again added by Act No. 46 of 1999, Sec 7 (w.e.f. 1-7-2002).


90. Power to stateourt.—Where any person agree in writing to state a case for the opinion if the Court, then the Court shall try and determine the same in the manner prescribed.


1. Substituted by Act No. 104 of 1976, for the former headings, w.e.f. 1st February, 1977.

91. Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public.—1[(1) In the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful Act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted.—

(a) By the Advocate-General, or

(b) With the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no special damage has been caused to such person by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful Act.]

(2) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit, which may exist independently of its provisions.

1. Substituted by Act No. 104 of 1976, for sub-section (1), w.e.f. 1st February, 1977.

192. Public charities.—(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express of constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the 2[leave of the Court] may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of the original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government.

Within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree-

(a) Removing any trustee;

(b) Appointing a new trustee;

(c) Vesting any property in a trustee;

3[(cc) Directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property;

(d) Directing accounts and inquiries;

(e) Declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;

(f) Authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;

(g) Settling a scheme; or

(h) Granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

(2) Save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (20 of 1863), 4[or by any corresponding law in force in] 6[the territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States], no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub-section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity with the provisions of that sub-section.

5[(3) The Court may alter the original purposes of an express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature and allow the property or income of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied cy pres in one or more of the following circumstances, namely.—

(a) Where the original purposes of the trust, in whole or in part.—

(i) Have been, as far as may be, fulfilled; or

(ii) Cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be carried out according to the directions given in the instrument creating the trust or, where there is no such instrument, according to the spirit of the trust; or

(b) Where the original purposes of the trust provide a use for a part only of the property available by virtue of the trust; or

(c) Where the property available by virtue of the trust and other property applicable for similar purposes can be more effectively used in conjunction with, and to that end can suitably be made applicable to any other purpose, regard being had to the spirit of the trust and its applicability to common purposes; or

(d) Where the original purposes, in whole or in part, were laid down by reference to an area which then was, but has since ceased to be, a unit for such purposes; or

(e) Where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have, since they were laid down,

(i) Been adequately provided for by other means, or

(ii) Ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community, or

(iii) Ceased to be, in law, charitable, or

(iv) Ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property available by virtue of the trust, regard being had to the spirit of the trust.]

1. Section 92 shall not apply to any religious trust in Bihar. See Bihar Act No. 1 of 1951.

2. Substituted by Act No. 104 of 1976, for the words “consent in writing of the Advocate-General”, w.e.f. 1st February, 1977.

3. Inserted by Act No. 66 of 1956.

4. Inserted by Act No. 2 of 1951.

5. Inserted by Act No. 104 of 1976, w.e.f. 1st February, 1977.

6. Inserted by Act No. 104 of 1976, w.e.f 1st February, 1977.

93. Exercise of powers of Advocate-General outside presidency-towns.—The powers conferred by Sections 91 and 92 on the Advocate-General may, outside the presidency-towns, be, with the previous sanction of the State Government, exercised also by the Collector or by such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.



94. Supplemental proceedings.— In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed.—

(a) Issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the prison;

(b) Direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property;

(c) Grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold;

(d) Appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;

(e) Make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.

95. Compensation for obtaining arrest, attachment or injunction on insufficient grounds.—(1) Where, in any suit in which an arrest or attachment has been effected or a temporary injunction granted under the last proceeding Section-

(a) It appears to the Court that such arrest, attachment or injunction was applied of on insufficient grounds, or

(b) The suit of the plaintiff fails and it appears to the Court that there was no reasonable or probable grounds for instituting the same,

The defendant may apply to the Court, and the Court may, upon such application, award against the plaintiff by its order such amount, 1[not exceedind fifty thousand rupees], as it deems a reasonable compensation to the defendant for the 2[expense or injury to reputation) caused to him];

Provided that a Court shall not award, under this Section, an amount exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction.

(2) An order determining say such application shall bar any suit for compensation in respect of such arrest, attaching or injunction.


The remedy under the Code is optional and an injured party can file a regular suit for compensation if he has not already sought relief under S.95.Thus S.95 is an alternative remedy in cases of wrongful obtainment of an injunction and it does not in any way interfere with the principles regulating suits for damages for tort of malicious legal process. (Bank of India v.Lakshmimani Dass, AIR 2000 SC 1172(1178)

1. Substituted by Act No. 46 1999, Sec 8 for "not exceeding one thousand rupees".

2. Substituted by Act No. 104 of 1976,Sec 31, for the words “expense or injury caused to him”, w.e.f. 1st February, 1977.


Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.