Analysis of Section 32, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

An Exposition of Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Powers of the Court to Compel Compliance

Introduction

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is the principal legislation governing the procedure to be followed in civil courts in India. Within its framework, Section 32 plays a crucial, albeit coercive, role in ensuring the efficacy of judicial process. This provision empowers the court to compel the attendance of any person to whom a summons has been issued under Section 30 of the CPC, thereby upholding the court's authority and facilitating the due administration of justice. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Section 32 CPC, examining its scope, the powers it confers upon the courts, its interplay with other provisions of the CPC, and its interpretation through judicial pronouncements. It also aims to distinguish this specific provision from other statutory references to "Section 32" that may arise in different legal contexts, including historical versions of the CPC or specific amendment acts.

Historical Context and Distinctions

It is pertinent at the outset to clarify the specific ambit of "Section 32 CPC" under discussion. The current Section 32 of the CPC, 1908, deals with penalties for default in compliance with summonses issued under Section 30. This must be distinguished from Section 32 of the erstwhile Civil Procedure Codes, such as the Code of 1882. For instance, in Edulji Muncherji Wacha v. Vullebhoy Khanbhoy And Ors. (1883), an application was made under Section 32 of the (then) Civil Procedure Code, which provided for the addition or transposition of parties to enable the court to "effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit."[16] This function is now largely subsumed under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908.[10], [14] Cases like Khadir Moideen Routher v. Rama Naickan And Anr. (1892)[20] and Syed Mahomed Sirajuddin Sahib Thorin Tharak Kadin And Ors. v. Syed Shah Gulam Jailani Satar Sahib And Ors. (1919)[21] also refer to this older version of Section 32 concerning party impleadment. The Judicial Committee in Raghunath Das v. Sunder Das Khetri (1914) also alluded to Section 32 of the CPC, 1882, in the context of adding parties.[22]

Furthermore, references to "Section 32" can also appear in the context of CPC Amendment Acts, such as Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, which has been discussed in relation to its repealing effect on state-level amendments.[15], [19] Similarly, other statutes may contain their own "Section 32," such as the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as noted in Sankararama Iyer v. R. Padmanabha Iyer (1912),[5] or other specific enactments as seen in Durlabhkumar v. District Judge Indore (1972) concerning a financial act.[4] This article, however, focuses exclusively on Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it currently stands, pertaining to penalties for default.

The Foundation: Section 30 of the CPC

Section 32 is intrinsically linked to Section 30 of the CPC. Section 30 empowers the Court, subject to prescribed conditions and limitations, at any time, either of its own motion or on the application of any party, to:

  • (a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence;
  • (b) issue summonses to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as aforesaid;
  • (c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit.

It is the failure to comply with a summons issued under Section 30, particularly clause (b), that triggers the coercive measures outlined in Section 32. The purpose of Section 30 is to ensure that the court has access to all relevant information and evidence necessary for a just adjudication, and Section 32 serves as the enforcement mechanism for this purpose.

Powers Vested in the Court under Section 32 CPC

Section 32 of the CPC, 1908, titled "Penalty for default," stipulates:

"The Court may compel the attendance of any person to whom a summons has been issued under section 30 and for that purpose may—
(a) issue a warrant for his arrest;
(b) attach and sell his property;
(c) impose a fine upon him not exceeding five hundred rupees;
(d) order him to furnish security for his appearance and in default commit him to the civil prison."

The use of the word "may" indicates that the powers conferred are discretionary. However, this discretion is judicial and must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily, keeping in mind the objective of ensuring compliance and facilitating justice. The Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kota (1955) emphasized that procedural laws should facilitate justice and not serve as punitive measures, advocating for flexibility in interpretation.[1] While Section 32 involves penalties, its primary aim is coercive rather than purely punitive, designed to secure the presence or cooperation of the individual concerned.

(a) Issuance of Warrant for Arrest

This is a significant power allowing the court to curtail personal liberty to ensure compliance. It is generally exercised when other methods are, or are likely to be, ineffectual.

(b) Attachment and Sale of Property

This measure imposes a pecuniary pressure on the defaulting person. The attachment and subsequent sale of property are serious consequences, intended to compel obedience.

(c) Imposition of Fine

The court can impose a monetary fine, currently capped at five hundred rupees. While the amount may seem modest by contemporary standards, it serves as a deterrent and a mark of the court's disapproval of non-compliance.

(d) Order to Furnish Security and Committal to Civil Prison

This provision allows the court to demand security for future appearance and, in default, to commit the person to civil prison. This underscores the gravity with which the CPC treats non-compliance with court summonses issued under Section 30.

Judicial Interpretation and Application of Section 32 CPC

The application of Section 32 CPC has been subject to judicial scrutiny. A key case is Uchhab Kanwar v. Legal Representatives Of Ramswaroop (1995), where the Rajasthan High Court considered the scope of Section 32.[17] The issue arose when a subordinate court, after issuing a non-bailable warrant that was unserved, proceeded to close the evidence of a witness. The High Court observed that Section 32 provides ample jurisdiction to the court to compel attendance, including issuing warrants, attaching property, or imposing fines. The argument that Section 32 applies only to matters like interrogatories or discovery (as per Section 30(a)) was countered by pointing to Section 30(b), which explicitly covers summonses to persons whose attendance is required to give evidence or produce documents. The High Court in Uchhab Kanwar opined that the subordinate court was not helpless and had several measures under Section 32 to compel attendance.[17]

The Supreme Court's observations in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N v. Union Of India (2005) regarding procedural laws aiming to expedite proceedings and the directory nature of certain time frames (allowing courts discretion) are also relevant.[1] Section 32, while granting coercive powers, must be wielded in a manner that ultimately serves the ends of justice, preventing delays caused by recalcitrant parties or witnesses without becoming an instrument of oppression. The overarching goal, as affirmed in T. Nagappa v. Y.R Muralidhar (2008) in a different context, is to ensure a fair trial, which includes the ability to present and rebut evidence effectively.[3] Section 32 aids this by ensuring that individuals crucial for this process are brought before the court.

Interplay with Other Procedural Provisions

Section 30 CPC

As established, Section 32 is consequential to Section 30. The powers under Section 32 are invoked only when a summons issued under the authority of Section 30 is disobeyed.

Order XVI, Rule 10 CPC

Order XVI of the CPC deals specifically with "Summoning and Attendance of Witnesses." Rule 10 of Order XVI outlines the procedure when a witness fails to comply with a summons. It provides for similar coercive measures: proclamation, attachment of property, imposition of fine, and even arrest and committal to civil prison if the witness fails to appear or show cause. While Section 32 is a general provision linked to any summons under Section 30 (which can include parties for discovery, or persons to produce documents, not just witnesses), Order XVI Rule 10 is specific to witnesses summoned to give evidence or produce documents. There is an overlap, but Section 32 operates on the broader premise of Section 30, which includes discovery, interrogatories, etc., in addition to summoning persons.

Section 151 CPC (Inherent Powers)

Section 151 CPC saves the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. While Section 32 provides specific powers, situations might arise where the court may need to invoke its inherent powers. The Supreme Court in K.K Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011) discussed the scope of Section 151, emphasizing its use to address procedural gaps.[2] However, as held in Harakh Nath Singh And Another v. Lodha Singh And Others Opp. Party. (1978), Section 151 does not create new powers but preserves existing inherent jurisdiction.[11] Thus, inherent powers would generally be invoked where specific provisions like Section 32 are insufficient or inapplicable, but not to override them.

Conclusion

Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stands as a vital instrument in the hands of civil courts to enforce compliance with summonses issued under Section 30. By providing a range of coercive measures, from fines and attachment of property to arrest and committal to civil prison, it underscores the importance of adherence to judicial processes. The discretionary nature of these powers necessitates their judicious application, balancing the need for compliance with the principles of fairness and natural justice. As interpreted by the judiciary, Section 32 serves not merely as a punitive tool but as a mechanism to ensure that civil proceedings are conducted efficiently and effectively, ultimately aiding in the quest for substantive justice. Its clear distinction from historical provisions bearing the same section number, or from sections in amendment acts or other statutes, is crucial for its correct understanding and application in contemporary legal practice.

References