The belief that an appeal freezes the matter is almost universal, and the rule that governs it says the opposite in its own words. Order XLI rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from, except so far as the appellate court may order; and execution shall not be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred. So the decree keeps its force. Execution can proceed. Possession can be taken, money can be recovered, and an appeal number on a file does not change any of it. A stay is a separate application, and it is not easy. Under rule 5(3) the court has to be satisfied of three things before it stays execution: that substantial loss may result without the order, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given. And where the decree is for money, rule 1(3) requires the appellant to deposit the disputed amount or furnish security — and rule 5(5) says no stay shall be ordered until that is done. Now the other clock, which runs faster than anybody expects. An appeal under the Code has ninety days to a High Court and thirty days to any other court, from the date of the decree. Section 12 of the Limitation Act generously excludes the day of pronouncement and the time taken to obtain the certified copies. But read its Explanation, because it is the sentence that costs most appeals: any time taken by the court to prepare the decree before an application for a copy is made shall not be excluded. The court delay helps you only from the day you asked. If the decree sat undrawn for two months and you applied in the third, those two months are yours. Which produces the shortest piece of useful advice on this page. On the day judgment is pronounced, do two things: apply for the certified copies, and decide about the stay. Everything else can wait a week. Those two cannot.
What is on this page
There is one belief about appeals that is held by almost everybody who has not had to test it, and testing it is expensive.
The belief is that filing suspends the judgment. That once an appeal is on the file, the decree is in abeyance, nobody can act on it, and the matter is parked until the appellate court speaks. On that understanding, the appeal period is a period of safety.
It is a period in which to file, and nothing more. Nobody is obliged to wait for you to use it, and the decree holder usually does not.
The provision is not ambiguous and it does not need interpreting.
Read the structure of the sub-rule rather than only its opening. It states the general position, then preserves the appellate court power to order otherwise, then closes a second door by providing that execution shall not be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred, and only then confers the power to stay for sufficient cause. Three statements of what does not happen, and one of what may.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI rule 5(1) — an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the appellate court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the appellate court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
The belief is not stupid, and understanding where it comes from helps you argue against it when somebody repeats it to you.
Part of it is borrowed from criminal practice, where suspension of a sentence on appeal is a familiar idea. Part of it is the experience of litigants who did obtain a stay and remember the appeal rather than the application. And part of it is that an appeal feels like a continuation of the same case, which it is in one sense, so it seems natural that the decree should be suspended while it runs.
None of that affects what the rule says. Where a stay existed, somebody applied for it.
What the rule means in practice is worth setting out concretely, because the abstraction misleads.
A money decree can be executed: attachment, sale, garnishee. A decree for possession can be executed: the warrant can issue and possession can be delivered. A mandatory or prohibitory decree binds while the appeal is pending. None of it pauses because a memorandum was presented at a different counter in a different building.
The sequence that a great many litigants follow, which is to file the appeal and then see what happens, is the sequence in which the thing being fought over is lost while the fight is being prepared. By the time a stay is applied for, the asset may already be attached, and an application made after that has a worse case on delay than the same application made the week before.
Which means a stay is a document, a date and a burden rather than a consequence.
It is applied for, usually along with the memorandum of appeal, and it is decided on its own. The rule permits the appellate court to order a stay for sufficient cause, and it tells the court what it must be satisfied about before doing so.
It also has to be asked for in the right place. The application goes to the appellate court, not to the court that passed the decree, and it is that court which has to be satisfied of the three matters. Where execution has already begun in the court below, the appellate order is what stops it, so the two proceedings run in different buildings and the timing between them is the thing to manage.
The three matters are cumulative, and the second of them is the one that punishes delay.
All three have to be made out, and an application that addresses only the first is the commonest form of failure. Substantial loss is usually the easiest to prove and the only one clients think about. Delay and security are the two that decide most applications, and both are improved by acting in the first week rather than by arguing better in the sixth.
Order XLI rule 5(3) — no order for stay of execution shall be made unless the court making it is satisfied: (a) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the order is made; (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
For a decree for payment of money there is a step that sits in front of the stay, and most refused stay applications in money matters are refused on it.
Rule 1(3) requires an appellant against a decree for the payment of money to deposit the amount disputed in the appeal, or furnish such security in respect of it as the court may think fit, within the time the appellate court allows. And rule 5(5) provides that no order staying execution shall be made where the appellant has failed to make that deposit or furnish that security.
The practical consequence is that a stay application in a money matter should arrive with an offer rather than with a request. A part deposit, a bank guarantee, security over an unattached asset, or a combination, worked out with your accountant before filing. An applicant who proposes nothing is asking the court to do something rule 5(5) tells it not to do.
Everything in the first part of this page reduces to two tasks on the day judgment is pronounced, and they are the two tasks nobody does.
Apply for the certified copies, and keep the dated receipt. Decide about the stay, and if one is needed, start on the deposit or security question the same week.
Neither task requires the judgment to have been received, the decree to have been drawn, or an advocate to be available. The copy application needs a clerk and a counter fee. The stay decision needs only a view on whether the other side is likely to move, and in a money matter the answer is almost always yes.
Both are cheap, both take one clerk and one morning, and both get worse every day they are postponed. The rest of the appeal can be built over weeks. These two cannot be recovered.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Turning to the clock, the first thing to establish is which period applies to you, because the two differ by a factor of three.
An appeal under the Code to a High Court has ninety days. An appeal under the Code to any other court has thirty days. Which one you are on depends on the forum authorised to hear appeals from the court that decided against you, which is a question of fact about your own case rather than a general rule.
A litigant who has been told ninety days and is actually on thirty has, after three weeks, spent most of his time rather than a fifth of it. Establish the forum in the first week. Your advocate can settle it in a minute, and the minute is well spent.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
The periods are not in the Code. They are in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, and the entry is short.
Limitation Act, 1963, Schedule, Article 116 — an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from any decree or order is allowed (a) ninety days where it is taken to a High Court and (b) thirty days where it is taken to any other court. Article 117: thirty days for an appeal from a decree or order of a High Court to that same court. In all three entries the starting point named by the Schedule is the decree or order itself.
Note what the period runs from, because it is not what most people assume and it has a curious consequence.
What the clock is tied to is the decree or the order itself. A decree carries the date of the judgment it follows, so the count opens on the day the judge pronounced, even where the decree is physically drawn up and signed weeks afterwards. Being handed the papers later moves nothing. Learning of the result later moves nothing. Waiting while the registry prepares the document moves nothing either.
That is the first half of the limitation picture. The second half is the set of exclusions, and the two have to be read together or the arithmetic comes out wrong.
That is also why the date on the decree matters more than the date it was handed over. A decree drawn up in December bearing an October date gives you a period that began in October, which is the arithmetic that surprises litigants who dated everything from the day they received the papers.
The Limitation Act does not expect a litigant to carry the cost of a court timetable, and it says so.
The phrase doing the work is time requisite, which means the time actually and reasonably needed rather than the time that elapsed. A copy applied for promptly and collected promptly produces a clean exclusion. A copy left uncollected at the counter for a fortnight invites the argument that the fortnight was not requisite, and that argument is made against appellants regularly.
Limitation Act, 1963, section 12(1) and (2) — in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded. In computing the period of limitation for an appeal, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from shall be excluded.
There is a further exclusion in the next sub-section, and it is worth claiming because it is frequently overlooked in the computation.
Section 12(3) provides that where a decree or order is appealed from, or sought to be revised or reviewed, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment shall also be excluded.
So two separate exclusions are available: the time for the decree, and the time for the judgment. Both have to be worked out from the dates on the applications and the dates of delivery, and both have to be shown rather than asserted if the computation is ever questioned.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
And then the sentence that this page exists to put in front of you. It sits at the end of the same section, it is two lines long, and it decides more appeals than any argument.
Limitation Act, 1963, section 12, Explanation — in computing under this section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded.
What makes it so effective is that it operates silently. Nothing goes wrong, nobody objects, and no order is passed. The period simply turns out, when somebody finally computes it, to have been shorter than everybody assumed, and by then there is nothing to be done about the weeks already spent.
Apply that to the ordinary course of events and the trap becomes obvious.
Judgment is pronounced. The decree is not drawn up for some weeks, which is nobody fault and happens constantly. The litigant, told he has ninety days, waits. In the sixth week somebody finally goes to the copying section and applies.
Those first five weeks are not excluded. The court took them, but the Explanation says the court preparation time counts in your favour only from the date you applied. A litigant who believed he had ninety untouched days has in fact spent five weeks of them, and he will discover it when somebody computes the period properly, which is usually at the point of filing.
Which produces the one instruction on this page that costs nothing and saves the most.
Apply for certified copies of the judgment and the decree on the day judgment is pronounced. Not when the decree is ready, because the application does not require the decree to exist. Not when the advocate is next available, because a clerk can file it. On the day.
Then keep the stamped, dated acknowledgement somewhere you will not lose it, because that date is evidence and it is what makes the exclusion work. It belongs in the appeal file stapled to the copy it eventually produces, and a certified true copy of the acknowledgement itself is worth taking, since the original tends to travel.
If you are reading this after the period has expired, the Order contemplates your situation and provides a route.
It is not an extension and it is not available for the asking. It is an application, on affidavit, to satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time, and it is dealt with further down this page where the memorandum is discussed.
What matters now is only this: the answer to delay is documents and dates, not explanation. Hospital records, a death certificate, correspondence with an advocate who did not act, the dated copy application that shows what was being chased. Assemble those before anything is drafted.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
The right of appeal attaches to a decree, so the first question in any matter is whether what you hold is one.
A decree is the formal adjudication that conclusively determines the rights of the parties on the matters in controversy in the suit. It follows a judgment and it is a separate document from it, which is why both are applied for and why both are excluded separately under section 12.
An order is something else, and the Code treats the two quite differently for the purposes of appeal. That distinction is the subject of several sections below.
The right itself is conferred in wide terms and then cut back.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 96(1) — save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such court.
Every decree, from any court of original jurisdiction, to the court authorised to hear its appeals. The exceptions are the interesting part, and there are four worth knowing.
The first is not an exception at all but a confirmation, and it answers a question asked constantly.
Section 96(2) provides that an appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte. So a decree passed in your absence is appealable, and the absence does not forfeit the right.
That is one of two routes in such a case, the other being an application to set aside the ex parte decree in the court that passed it. Which is appropriate depends on why you were absent and on what the record shows, and it is a question for counsel rather than a choice to make from a page.
The second is a real bar and it is worth knowing before a case is settled rather than after.
Section 96(3) — no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the court with the consent of parties.
Finality is part of what a consent decree buys, and it is bought by both sides. A party who compromises on terms recorded as a decree and then becomes dissatisfied with those terms has no appeal from them, and attempts to characterise the decree as something other than consensual are a well-worn and largely unsuccessful path.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
The third is a value threshold, and it changes what a memorandum can contain rather than whether one may be filed.
Section 96(4) — no appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees.
Inside that bracket the findings of fact are closed. An appeal lies only on a question of law, so a memorandum complaining about how the evidence was weighed has nothing to say.
The fourth is a trap rather than a bar, and it catches parties in partition and accounts matters.
Section 97 provides that where a party aggrieved by a preliminary decree does not appeal from it, he is precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal preferred from the final decree.
So a preliminary decree that seems interim, and that a party decides to live with because the real fight is later, becomes unchallengeable. If a preliminary decree has gone against you on something that matters, the appeal against it is now and not at the end.
Where the order is not a decree and no appeal is given. A separate and much narrower supervisory route exists for some of those, and it was reshaped twice: once by an amendment that took effect in 2002 and once by a three-Judge decision in 2015 that most published material has not caught up with. It is set out, with the test that now governs it, under revision petition.
Which brings us to the distinction the Code insists on, because litigants routinely attempt to appeal things that are not appealable.
Section 105(1) — save as otherwise expressly provided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a court in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction; but where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal.
The second half is the useful half. An order that cannot be appealed on its own can still be attacked, as a ground, in the appeal against the decree that followed it.
Some orders are expressly made appealable, and they are a closed list rather than a general category.
The Code enumerates them, and the commonest in practice are the orders granting or refusing a temporary injunction. Those appeals have their own provision, their own period and their own practice, and they are dealt with on our injunction and stay order page rather than a second time here.
If what you hold is an order and it is not in the enumerated list, the answer is usually that you wait for the decree and take the point as a ground, which is what section 105(1) contemplates.
One further point about those appeals, since it bears on timing. They are governed by their own limitation entry rather than by the one for decrees, so an appellant who has an appealable order and a decree in the same matter may be running two different clocks at once. Establish both, in writing, rather than assuming the longer one covers the shorter.
One more route is confused with appeal often enough to need separating out.
A review is an application to the same court to look at its own order again, on narrow grounds, under its own provisions and its own limitation. It is not an appeal, it does not go upwards, and it does not become available merely because the appeal period has passed.
We deal with it on our review petition page, and it is ordered as a review petition. Where the matter is criminal rather than civil, the framework is different again and our criminal appeal page is the right place to start.
An appeal is not instituted by a letter, a petition or an affidavit. It is instituted by a memorandum, and the Order prescribes what that is.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI rule 1(1) — every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the court or to such officer as it appoints for the purpose, and the memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment.
Two things in that sub-rule are worth separating. The memorandum may be signed by the appellant himself or by his pleader, so a party in person can institute an appeal. And it is presented to the court or to such officer as the court appoints, which in most registries means a filing counter with its own scrutiny and its own list of objections, raised before the matter reaches a judge at all.
The copy requirement is where a filing most often fails on the day it is presented, which is reason enough to treat it as part of the appeal rather than as paperwork around it.
A copy of the judgment has to go with the memorandum. In practice the decree is wanted too, both because the limitation computation depends on it and because it is the document the appeal is actually against. Local High Court rules add their own requirements about paper books, indexing and the number of sets, and those differ between High Courts.
Which is the practical argument for obtaining the copies first and drafting afterwards, rather than drafting on the strength of a copy of the judgment somebody photographed in court.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Then the drafting instruction, which is stated in the rule and which almost no first draft complies with.
Order XLI rule 1(2): the memorandum shall set forth, concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without any argument or narrative, and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively.
Three instructions are packed into that sub-rule and each has teeth. Concisely, so a ground is a sentence or two rather than a page. Under distinct heads, so each error stands on its own and can be allowed or rejected separately. Numbered consecutively, so the court and the respondent can refer to ground four without ambiguity. A memorandum that fails on form invites the kind of first hearing described later on this page.
Two prohibitions in one phrase, and they rule out the two things a client most wants the document to do.
No narrative means the memorandum does not tell the story of the dispute. The court has the judgment; it does not need the history retold. No argument means the memorandum does not persuade; it identifies. The persuading happens at the hearing, by the person appearing.
A ground is an identified error in a judgment, stated in a sentence or two, numbered. Not a complaint about the outcome, not a summary of the evidence, and not a paragraph beginning because.
What happens if a point is thought of later is governed by the next rule, and it works in two directions at once.
Order XLI rule 2 — the appellant shall not, except by leave of the court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal; but the appellate court, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds of objection set forth in the memorandum or taken by leave, provided that it shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected has had a sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground.
Three readings of that rule, and the third is the one appellants do not expect.
First, a point left out of the memorandum needs leave, which means an application and a reason rather than a mention at the hearing. Second, the appellate court is not boxed in by what was pleaded; it may decide on a ground nobody raised. Third, and this is the protection, it may not do so without giving the party who would be affected a sufficient opportunity to contest the case on it.
The practical lesson is to plead widely but concisely at the drafting stage, because adding later costs leave and omitting entirely may cost the point.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
A time-barred appeal is not refused at the counter. The Order provides a route, and it provides it in a particular order.
Order XLI rule 3A(1) — when an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. Rule 3A(2): if the court sees no reason to reject the application without the issue of a notice to the respondent, notice shall be issued, and the application shall be finally decided before the court proceeds to deal with the appeal.
Two features of that provision shape how the work has to be done.
The application goes in with the memorandum, not afterwards. An appeal filed late without it is an appeal that invites rejection rather than a hearing on the delay. And the application is supported by affidavit, which makes the delay a matter of sworn fact rather than submission.
So the preparation for a late appeal is evidence-gathering rather than drafting. Dated hospital records, a death certificate, correspondence showing instructions given to somebody who did not act, the dated copy application proving what was being pursued. We prepare these as a notary affidavit on the documents, and the facts have to be capable of being sworn to by somebody who knows them.
Once the appeal is on the file, the first hearing is more consequential than its name suggests.
Order XLI rule 11 — the appellate court, after sending for the record if it thinks fit to do so, and after fixing a day for hearing the appellant or his pleader and hearing him accordingly if he appears on that day, may dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred and without serving notice on the respondent. Rule 11A — endeavour shall be made to conclude such hearing within sixty days from the date on which the memorandum of appeal is filed.
Which means an appeal can end before the other side knows it exists, on nothing but the memorandum and the judgment. That is the strongest argument there is for a memorandum drafted properly rather than filed quickly.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Non-appearance has its own rule and it operates on both sides.
Rule 17(1) permits the court, where the appellant does not appear on the day fixed or on any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, to make an order that the appeal be dismissed. Rule 17(2) provides that where the appellant appears and the respondent does not, the appeal shall be heard ex parte.
Both sub-rules reward attendance and neither is a technicality. In practice the risk is not a deliberate absence but a date missed because nobody was tracking it, which is why the date sheet described at the end of this page is worth more than it looks. An appeal can be lost without anybody arguing against it.
And attached to the first of those is an Explanation that matters a great deal for what can be done afterwards.
Order XLI rule 17(1), Explanation: nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the court to dismiss the appeal on the merits.
So a dismissal for non-appearance is a dismissal for default. It is not a decision that the appeal was bad, and the distinction governs whether there is any route back. What that route is, and whether it is open on your facts, is counsel work, but knowing that the dismissal was not on the merits is the fact that starts the conversation.
Appellants tend to think of the appeal as their proceeding. The Order gives the respondent a weapon inside it.
A respondent who has not himself appealed may nevertheless support the decree on any ground decided against him in the court below, and may take a cross-objection to the decree.
Which means filing an appeal can make your position worse rather than merely failing to make it better. A decree that gave you sixty per cent of what you asked for is not a floor once it is before the appellate court; the respondent can attack the sixty you got while you attack the forty you did not.
The period for it is short and it begins with something the appellant himself sets in motion.
Order XLI rule 22 — any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree on any of the grounds decided against him in the court below, but take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided he has filed such objection in the appellate court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the appellate court may see fit to allow.
So service of notice starts a clock that runs against the appellant. It is a date to diarise on the appellant side, not only on the respondent side, because it tells you when the shape of the appeal stops changing.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
The most common hope on a first appeal is that the thing which was not proved below can be proved now. The rule begins by closing that door.
The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court. That is the general position, and the exceptions are narrow and specific rather than general and forgiving.
The reason for the general bar is structural rather than unkind. An appeal is a rehearing on the record made below, and allowing the record to be rebuilt on appeal would make the trial provisional. So the rule treats the trial as the occasion for evidence and the appeal as the occasion for argument about what that evidence established.
Three situations let evidence in. Which of the three you are standing on decides how the application has to be framed.
Order XLI rule 27(1) — additional evidence may be allowed where (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or (aa) the party seeking to produce it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed; or (b) the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause.
And a short requirement attaches to any order admitting it.
Rule 27(2) provides that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the appellate court, that court shall record the reason for its admission.
Read the three gates again and notice what none of them is. None of them is that the evidence is important. None is that it would change the result. Gate (aa) in particular asks about due diligence at the time of the trial, which means the question is not how useful the document is now but why it was not produced then. A document that was in your own file throughout the trial fails that gate however decisive it looks.
One more rule rounds out what an appellate court can do, and it is wider than parties expect.
Order XLI rule 33: the appellate court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree, and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
If the first appeal fails, a further appeal exists and it is a different kind of proceeding altogether.
A second appeal lies to the High Court from an appellate decree, and it is not a second look at the evidence. Everything about it is controlled by one requirement.
The change of character is total. A first appeal rehears the dispute on the record: facts, inferences, credibility, law. A second appeal does none of that. It examines one identified legal question arising out of the appellate decree, and the findings of fact below are ordinarily closed. A client who arrives wanting the evidence looked at again has to be told that the stage for that has passed.
The requirement is in the section that creates the right.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 100(1) — save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Section 101 — no second appeal shall lie except on the ground mentioned in section 100.
Not a question of law. A substantial question of law. The adjective is the whole of the gatekeeping, and a memorandum that identifies a legal error without showing why it is substantial has not engaged the section.
The section then imposes a drafting obligation that is unusual and that is routinely ignored.
Section 100(3) requires that in an appeal under the section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
Precisely state means one sentence that a judge could read aloud and answer. Not a list of grievances, not a paragraph, and not a question so wide that it could be asked of any judgment. Drafting that sentence is the single hardest piece of work in a second appeal, and it is counsel work rather than ours.
What happens to that sentence is the next step, and it explains why the drafting matters so much.
Section 100(4) provides that where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
The appeal is then heard on the question the Court has formulated. So the sentence in the memorandum is a proposal, and the Court decides what the appeal is actually about. A loosely drafted proposal produces either no formulation at all or a formulation narrower than the appellant wanted.
One provision closes a door that litigants assume is open, and it is worth knowing before the second appeal is argued rather than after.
Section 100A: notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single Judge.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Returning to the first appeal, there is a section that disposes of a large category of grounds people are keenest to plead.
Section 99 — no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of any misjoinder or non-joinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. Proviso — nothing in this section shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.
That section is why a list of procedural complaints is not an appeal, and understanding it changes how grounds are chosen.
An irregularity has to be connected to something. Either it affected the merits, meaning the outcome would or might have been different, or it affected the jurisdiction, meaning the court was not entitled to decide at all. An irregularity that affected neither is not a ground even where it plainly happened.
So the drafting question for every procedural ground is the same one: what did this change? A ground that cannot answer it is a ground that section 99 answers instead. The exception is the non-joinder of a necessary party, which the proviso removes from the section altogether.
And a trap of the same family as the preliminary decree one, catching parties who treated an interim step as harmless.
Section 105(2) provides that notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), where any party aggrieved by an order of remand from which an appeal lies does not appeal from it, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness.
A remand often looks like a second chance rather than a defeat, so the party who lost something in it lets it pass. The section then closes the point permanently.
The practical test when a remand order is passed is therefore the same as for a preliminary decree: ask what this order has decided against you that will not be open again. If the answer is anything of substance, the time to challenge it is now, while the appeal against it lies, rather than at the end when the section closes the point.
Finally, what an appellate court may actually do with the matter, which is more than confirm or reverse.
Section 107(1): subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an appellate court shall have power (a) to determine a case finally; (b) to remand a case; (c) to frame issues and refer them for trial; (d) to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. Section 107(2) — subject as aforesaid, the appellate court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.
Notice clause (b) in particular, because it contrasts sharply with some statutory appeals elsewhere that forbid a remand in terms. Here a remand is one of four things on the menu, and a first appeal that identifies a failure to decide an issue is frequently answered with one rather than with a final determination. Where a decree in your favour has instead to be enforced, that is an execution petition, and where you expect a decree to be passed against you elsewhere a caveat is the document that gets you notice of it. A matter that has to be taken to a writ or revisional forum instead is a petition in its own form, and a respondent answering a memorandum served on him needs a reply drafted to the grounds rather than to the dispute.
Our work on an appeal is the document and the file behind it, and it begins before anybody decides whether to appeal at all.
The memorandum, drawn to the form the Order requires: objections stated concisely, under distinct heads, numbered, without argument and without narrative. The copies that have to accompany it, obtained rather than described. The application for condonation with its affidavit where the period has gone. The application for stay, drafted to the three matters the Court has to be satisfied about rather than as a request. And the dated note of every period running, which on this subject is the part clients come back for.
The grounds are counsel’s. The structure, the copies, the affidavits and the diary are ours, and a memorandum arriving in counsel’s hands with those four already done is worth a week.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Five things, and four of them are papers rather than instructions.
The judgment and the decree, as certified copies with their application dates visible. The pleadings as they stood: plaint, written statement, and any amendment. The documents that were exhibited, with their exhibit numbers, and a note of anything that was tendered and refused. The evidence, so far as it has been typed or transcribed. And a plain account, in your own words, of what you say the trial court got wrong, which is the raw material a ground is made from rather than the ground itself.
That last item is the one clients undervalue and we ask for in writing. An appellate ground is an identified error in a judgment, not a complaint about an outcome, and the fastest way to find the error is to have the person who sat through the trial say where the judgment stopped matching what happened.
There is a request that arrives on these files regularly and we do not entertain it, whatever form it takes.
We will not draft a ground asserting a fact that is not on the record, or describe evidence as having been led when it was not, or state that a document was filed when it was tendered and refused. On a first appeal the record is the whole of the material, and a memorandum that misdescribes it is a memorandum that falls apart at the first hearing with the file open on the bench.
And one refusal that costs us the work more often than any other. We will not tell you that filing the appeal will hold off the execution. It will not, and the rule says so in its own words. Where the real object is to halt something, the paper that does it is the stay application, and it is a separate exercise with a separate burden.
Court work is for your advocate, whose fee is engaged and paid by you directly; we do not quote, collect or share it.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Four places where the file hands over to the person who will stand up and argue it.
Choosing the grounds, which is a judgment about a judgment. Arguing the stay, where the three matters have to be made out on affidavit and in submission. The hearing itself, including any application to bring additional evidence onto the record. And the decision whether a second appeal is available at all, which turns on whether a substantial question of law can be identified and stated precisely.
All four sit with the advocate on record. Our side of it is a file that needs no reconstruction, plus a note of which periods are running while it is being read.
Three routes exist from an adverse civil decision and they are not alternatives you pick between on preference. Set side by side, because the choice is usually settled by the facts rather than by strategy.
| Route | What it attacks | What it requires | Where it goes |
|---|---|---|---|
| First appeal | A decree of a court of original jurisdiction, on facts and on law | A memorandum with concise numbered objections and the copies; limitation under Article 116 | The court authorised to hear appeals from that court |
| Second appeal | An appellate decree, on law only | A substantial question of law, stated precisely in the memorandum and then formulated by the Court | The High Court |
| Review | The same court’s own order, on narrow grounds | Its own provisions and its own limitation; see our review petition page | The court that passed the order |
| Appeal from an order | An order rather than a decree, only where the Code allows | The enumerated categories; see our injunction and stay order page | As provided for that category |
Where the matter is criminal rather than civil the whole framework is different, and our criminal appeal page deals with it; the service is ordered as criminal appeal. Where what is wanted is not an appeal but protection against a decree already passed against somebody else, that is a caveat, and where a decree in your favour has to be enforced it is an execution petition.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Four things this does not take in, and for each one the figure belongs to its own service rather than to a guess printed here.
Court fee and process fee, paid at cost. The cost of certified copies, which is fixed by the court and paid at the counter. Appearance, argument and the conduct of any application. And the choice of grounds, which is counsel’s work and not something we will supply as a template.
Nor does this cover the stage before a decree. A suit is drafted as a civil suit, a defence as a written statement, an interlocutory request as an application, and a demand before litigation as a legal notice. An appeal is the last of those documents, not the first.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
On this subject the single most useful thing we produce is not the memorandum. It is a one-page list of dates, set out here because that list is what a competent first day leaves behind.
The date judgment was pronounced, which is excluded from the count. The date the application for certified copies was made, which is the date from which the court’s own preparation time begins to help you rather than hurt you. The date the copies were ready. The outer date for the appeal, computed on ninety days or thirty depending on the forum, with the exclusions applied and shown. The date the stay application was filed. And, once notice is served, the one month inside which a cross-objection may be filed against you.
Six dates, on one page, computed rather than assumed. Almost every lost appeal we are shown lost on one of those six, and in most of them the second date was the problem: nobody applied for the copy until the decree had already been drawn up.
And the set of papers left behind at the end, assembled to be workable by somebody meeting the matter for the first time.
The memorandum as presented, with its numbered grounds. The certified copies of the judgment and the decree, with the copy applications stapled to them because those dates are evidence. The condonation application and affidavit where there was one. The stay application and whatever order came on it. The indexed record: pleadings, exhibits, and a list of what was refused. And the date sheet described above, kept current rather than filed.
Nothing enters that set unverified: each paper goes through document verification against the original it came from, anything irreplaceable is preserved as a certified true copy, and where a paper is in another language it is put through legal translation in full rather than condensed into a note. For a matter that will run through an appeal and possibly a second one, legal file management keeps that set usable instead of archival.
Send us the date judgment was pronounced, the name of the court, and whether the decree is for money or for something else. We will come back the same day with the outer date for the appeal computed on the correct Article with the exclusions shown, a note on whether a stay application is needed and what it has to establish, and a list of the copies to apply for now. If it turns out an appeal is not the right route, we will say so and point you at the one that is.
The Code and the Order were read together with the Schedule to the Limitation Act for this page, because on this subject the trap that costs most appeals sits in a sentence of the Limitation Act rather than anywhere in the Code. Governing law: the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963. On the right of appeal, section 96(1) provides that save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code or by any other law in force, an appeal lies from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such court. Section 96(2) provides that an appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte. Section 96(3) provides that no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the court with the consent of parties. Section 96(4) provides that no appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees. Section 97 provides that where a party aggrieved by a preliminary decree does not appeal from it, he is precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal preferred from the final decree. Section 98(2) provides that where the appellate bench is equally divided and there is no majority concurring in a judgment varying or reversing the decree, such decree shall be confirmed. Section 105(1) bars an appeal from an order save where expressly provided, while allowing an error in such an order to be taken as a ground of objection in a memorandum of appeal against the decree; section 105(2) precludes a party who did not appeal an appealable remand order from afterwards disputing its correctness. Section 107 gives the appellate court power to determine a case finally, to remand it, to frame issues and refer them for trial, and to take or require additional evidence, and gives it the same powers and duties as a court of original jurisdiction.
On the second appeal, section 100(1) provides that an appeal lies to the High Court from an appellate decree only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law; section 100(3) requires the memorandum of appeal to precisely state the substantial question of law involved; and section 100(4) requires the High Court, where satisfied that such a question is involved, to formulate that question. Section 101 provides that no second appeal shall lie except on the ground mentioned in section 100. Section 100A provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent or any other law, where an appeal from an appellate decree or order has been heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from that judgment and decree. Section 103 permits the High Court in a second appeal to determine any issue necessary for disposal where the evidence on record is sufficient, whether the issue was not determined below or was wrongly determined by reason of a question of law under section 100. Section 99 provides that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, on account of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties or causes of action, or on account of any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court, with a proviso excepting non-joinder of a necessary party.
On the memorandum and on the stay, Order XLI rule 1(1) requires every appeal to be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the court or to such officer as it appoints, accompanied by a copy of the judgment. Rule 1(2) requires the memorandum to set forth, concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from, without any argument or narrative, numbered consecutively. Rule 1(3) provides that where the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall within the time the appellate court allows deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the court may think fit. Rule 2 provides that the appellant shall not, except by leave of the court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum, but the appellate court is not confined to those grounds, provided it shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected has had a sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground. Rule 3A(1) requires an appeal presented after the expiry of the period of limitation to be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring it within that period, and rule 3A(2) requires that application to be decided before the appeal is dealt with. ★ Rule 5(1) provides that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the appellate court may order, and that execution shall not be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred, though the court may for sufficient cause order a stay. Rule 5(3) requires the court, before making an order to stay execution, to be satisfied that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order ultimately binding upon him. Rule 5(5) provides that no order staying execution shall be made where the appellant has failed to make the deposit or furnish the security specified in rule 1(3).
On what happens in the appeal, Order XLI rule 11 permits the appellate court, after sending for the record if it thinks fit and after fixing a day for hearing the appellant or his pleader and hearing him accordingly if he appears, to dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the court from whose decree it is preferred and without serving notice on the respondent; rule 11A provides that endeavour shall be made to conclude such a hearing within sixty days. Rule 17(1) permits dismissal where the appellant does not appear on the day fixed, with an Explanation that the court has no power to dismiss the appeal on the merits in that situation; rule 17(2) provides that where the appellant appears and the respondent does not, the appeal shall be heard ex parte. Rule 22 permits a respondent, though he may not have appealed, to support the decree on any ground decided against him and to take any cross-objection to the decree, such objection to be filed in the appellate court within one month from the date of service on him of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the court may see fit to allow. Rule 27(1) provides that the parties shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court, except where the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; where the party seeking to produce it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed; or where the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause; and rule 27(2) requires the court to record its reason for admitting it. Rule 33 gives the appellate court power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to exercise that power in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties although they may not have filed any appeal or objection.
On time, which is where this subject is usually lost, the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, Article 116(a), prescribes ninety days for an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure to a High Court from any decree or order, and Article 116(b) prescribes thirty days for such an appeal to any other court, in each case running from the date of the decree or order. Article 117 prescribes thirty days for an appeal from a decree or order of any High Court to the same court, from the date of the decree or order. Section 12(1) excludes the day from which the period is to be reckoned. Section 12(2) provides that in computing the period of limitation for an appeal, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from shall be excluded; and section 12(3) provides that where a decree or order is appealed from, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment shall also be excluded. ★★ The Explanation to section 12 is the sentence this page is built around: in computing the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded. Note also that Articles 114 and 115 of the same Schedule still describe criminal appeals by reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, an un-updated cross-reference of the kind the general savings provisions exist to handle. Review is governed by its own provisions and its own limitation and is dealt with on our review petition page; appeals from orders rather than decrees are confined to the categories the Code enumerates and are dealt with on the injunction and stay order page. Court rules differ between High Courts on the form, paper-book and indexing requirements, so confirm the local practice and every period above against the current text before anything is presented.
Two doors, both free. Clients search a factual directory of enrolled advocates. Advocates apply to be listed on it — no fee, no commission, nothing paid in either direction.
Search Bar Council enrolled advocates by what your matter is about, by court, or by city. Searching and sending a request are both free.
Enrolled advocates anywhere in India can apply to be listed. Your entry is published only after we verify your enrolment number with your State Bar Council.
Would rather not pick anybody? Tell us the matter instead — one form goes to every advocate at once, and the first to take it up calls you.
This directory carries no ratings, no reviews, no rankings and no fees — only the factual particulars the Bar Council of India permits, published at each advocate's own request. Browse the network · Terms for Advocates