The provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 confers a monopoly right of pleading and practising law only on enrolled or registered Advocates. Section 30 of the Advocates Act confers such a right to practice on a ‘pleader’ and/or ‘Advocate’ after he gets himself enrolled as such. Section 30 reads :-

“30. Right of Advocates to practise :- Subject to the provisions of the Act, every Advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the Territories to which this Act extends, –

(i) in all Courts including the Supreme Court;

(ii) before any Tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence; and (iii) before any other authority or person before whom such Advocate is by or under any law for the time-being in force entitled to practise.”

Section 33 of the Advocates Act confers an exclusive and monopoly right on the enrolled Advocate or pleader to plead and practice in Court of law. The said provision contained in Section 33 reads :

“33. Advocates alone entitled to practise :- Except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the time-being in force, no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practice in any Court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an Advocate under this Act.”

The provisions of Order III, Rule 1 and Sees. 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act have been construed thus :-

“It has to be noticed that Section 33 of the Act uses the word ‘practise’ while Section 32 uses the word ‘to appear’ in the Courts etc. The word ‘practise’ means appear, act and plead, unless there is anything in the subject or context to limit its meaning. Therefore, the word ‘appear’ is only one aspect and does not take in the concept of ‘pleading’ without which, it cannot be equated to ‘practising’. The right to appear in Court and plead for a principal as also the right to practise in Courts have to be distinguished from the other acts, which a power of Attorney can perform under Order 3, Rule 1, C.P.C. So far as the signing or verifying or doing other acts are concerned, these could be done by the power of Attorney duly authorised, therefore but so far as appearing or practising in Court are concerned, they are subject to the provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act. As such the power of Attorney holder cannot plead or practise in Court for a principal unless specially authorised by the Courts in that behalf u/s 32 of the Advocates Act (1961)”

Signing of Pleading

Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code, which require that ever pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader and where a party has reason of absence or for any good cause is unable to sign the pleading, the same may be signed by any person authorized by him to sue and defend on his behalf. If there is any defect in signing of the pleading, the said defect can be rectified and defect as such is not treated as fatal.


The Apex Court in Madan Gopal Kanodia Vs. Mamraj Maniram and Others, , held that the pleadings are loosely drafted in the Court, and Court should not scrutinize the pleadings with such meticulous care so as to result any genuine claim being defeated on trivial ground. The Apex Court while dealing with the matter relating with the life and liberty of a citizen guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution, in a criminal appeal arising out of a writ of habeas corpus petition in Mohinuddin alias Moin Master Vs. District Magistrate, Beed and Others, held that the Court was not justified in dismissing a habeas corpus petition merely on the ground of imperfect pleadings of the petitioner.

From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases discussed above, it is crystal clear that the pleading in the habeas corpus writ petition and counter-affidavit have to be interpreted not with formalistic rigour but with latitude or awareness of low legal literacy of the citizen of India. Therefore, the submissions of Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding imperfect pleading in the counter-affidavit of the respondents in the present habeas corpus is not sustainable in the eye of law.

  1. Meaning and Importance -Functions of Pleadings – Order 6 of CPC – Essentials of Pleading – Particulars of Pleading – Striking out pleadings- Signing and verification- Amendment in Pleadings – Applicability of Order 6 CPC in Other Proceedings.
  2. Necessary Parties and Proper Parties
  3. Joinder ,Non joinder and Misjoinder of parties
  4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Courts-Pecuniary, Territorial and Subject matter jurisdiction
  5. Cause of Action

Civil Pleadings – Substantive Aspects and Drafts

  1. Plaint- Meaning of plaint, Ingredient of Plaint and Draft of Plaint (Order 7 of CPC)
  2. Written Statement- (Order 8 of CPC) – Set off and Counter Claim
  3. Notice to Government official under Sec.80 of CPC
  4. Temporary Injunction Application ( Order 39, r-1)
  5. Appeals –First Appeal and Second Appeal( Section 96- Section 100)
  • Specific Pleading
  • specific Denial
  • The Limitation to file a cause
  • pleading in writ petition [ Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others AIR 1988 SC 2181 ]
  • Counter Affidavit
  • Subscription and verification of pleading
  • Amendment of pleading

Cases Laws

  1. Lakshmi Narayan Deo Vasti Temple vs. Narayan F. Marathy (1995) 2 Bom CR 610
  2. Prabodh Verma vs. State of UP (1984) 4 SCC 251
  3. Someswer vs. Tribhuban AIR 1934 PC 130
  4. Narinder Nath vs. Jaswant Singh AIR 1994 P&H 111
  5. Syed Muhammed vs. Fattah Muhammed ILR 22 Cal. 324 (PC)
  6. Viswanath vs. Ram Narayan AIR 1940 All 405
  7. Tika Khawas vs. Pasupathi AIR 1986 Sikk. 6
  8. Motilal vs. Yudhistir AIR 1950 PC 73
  9. Brijlal vs. Parvathy AIR 1982 Del. 114
  10. Firm Gopal & Co. Ltd vs. Firm Hazarilal AIR 1963 MP 37
  11. Keshab Rao vs. Chandrabhan AIR 1980 Bom 380
  12. Onkar Nath vs. Vedvyas 1978 Ren.CR 408 (HP)
  13. Iyakku Matho vs. Julius Elias Metropolitan AIR 1962 Ker 19
  14. Rooplal vs. Nachhittar AIR 1982 SC 1559
  15. A K Gupta vs. DVC AIR 1967 SC 961
  16. G. Nagamma vs. Siromanamma (1996) 2 SCC 25

Cases Laws

  1. Phula Devi vs. Mangtu Maharaj AIR 1969 Pat 284
  2. Jagjiban Das vs. Gunan Bhai AIR 1967 Guj 1
  3. N.Naidu vs. K.Naidu AIR 1969 Mad 329
  4. N.Naidu vs. K.Naidu AIR 1969 Mad 329
  5. Jogeshwar vs. Sheopujan AIR 1986 Pat 35
  6. State of Maharatsra vs. Glaxo 1979 Bom CR 321
  7. Raghunath Das vs. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 674
  8. State of MP VS. Lajjaram AIR 1961 MP 339

Criminal Pleadings – Substantive Aspects and Drafts

  1. Meaning – Criminal Pleadings in India
  2. Complaint(Sec.2d of Cr PC)
  3. Application for Bail (Sec.436, Sec. 437 of Cr PC)
  4. Anticipatory Bail (Sec.438 of Cr PC)
  5. Application U/S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Other important Pleadings – Substantive Aspects and Model Forms

  1. Complaints Under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
  2. Petition for Dissolution of Marriage under Hindu Marriage Act


  • Rules of Drafting
    Uses of Legalese in Drafting
    Interpretation of Deeds & Documents
    Transactions for which Written Documents are not necessary
  • Proof of Deeds and Documents
  • Analysis of a Deed
    Signature and Attestation of Deed
    Searches and Investigation of Title
    Stamp Duty
    Registration of Documents
    Compulsory Registration of Documents
    Effect of Registration and Non-registration
    Rectification, Modification, Revocation and Cancellation of Deeds & Agreements
  1. Sale Deed-Meaning of sale and Its essentials
  2. Mortgage Deed-Meaning of mortgage and Its kinds
  3. Lease Deed-Meaning of lease and Distinction between Lease and Licence
  4. Gift Deed- Meaning of gift and Distinction between Sale and Lease

Cases laws

  1. State of Bombay vs. United Motors AIR 1955 SC
  2. PS Santhi vs. SB Bhagwandas Kripalini AIR 1991 SC
  3. Sonia Bhatia vs. State of UP AIR 1981 SC 1274
  4. Sakunthala vs. State of Haryana AIR 1979 SC 843
  5. Sasi vs. Shanker 54 CWN 936

Specific Suits

  • suits by or against a corporation


What are Deeds

Capacity of Parties to a Deed

  • Minor
    Pardanashin Ladies
    Disqualified Transferee
    Limited Owners
    Unborn Persons
    Juridical Person
    Wakf and Mutawalli
    Partnership and Partnership Firm
  • Coparcener and Hindu joint family under Hindu Law
    Joint family — Concept of Ownership — under
    Mahomedan Law

Basic Laws 

  1. Indian Contract Act
  2. Indian Registration Act
  3. Transfer of  Property Act
  4. Indian Stamp Act


Categories: CPC

Tagged as: