Section 32 of CPC deals with the penalty for default in obeying a summons or order of the court. The provision empowers the court to take a number of coercive measures against the person who has defaulted, including:
- Issuing a warrant for their arrest.
- Attaching and selling their property.
- Imposing a fine on them.
- Ordering them to furnish security for their appearance and in default committing them to the civil prison.
When Can the Court Impose a Penalty Under Section 32 of CPC?
The court can impose a penalty under Section 32 of CPC if a person:
- Fails to obey a summons issued under Section 31 of CPC.
- Fails to produce a document or other object ordered by the court to be produced.
- Fails to answer a question or give evidence as ordered by the court.
- Fails to comply with any other order of the court.
Factors Considered by the Court Before Imposing a Penalty
Before imposing a penalty under Section 32 of CPC, the court will consider the following factors:
- The seriousness of the default.
- The reasons for the default.
- The prejudice caused to the other party by the default.
- The conduct of the person in default.
Examples of Penalties That Can Be Imposed Under Section 32 of CPC
The following are some examples of penalties that can be imposed under Section 32 of CPC:
- Issuing a warrant for the person’s arrest and directing the police to bring them before the court.
- Attaching and selling the person’s property to recover the costs of the proceedings.
- Imposing a fine on the person, which may be payable to the court or to the other party in the case.
- Ordering the person to furnish security for their appearance in court and in default committing them to the civil prison.
Section 32 of CPC is an important provision that empowers the court to take action against persons who fail to obey its summonses and orders. This provision is essential for ensuring that the court can function effectively and that the parties to a lawsuit have access to justice.
Vijayalakshmi vs. Srinivasan (2003) 9 SCC 27
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the power to impose a penalty under Section 32 of CPC is a discretionary power that must be exercised judicially. The court also held that the power should not be used to harass or embarrass the person in default.
The facts of the case were as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, claiming damages for defamation. The plaintiff served a summons on the defendant, requiring him to attend court and give evidence. The defendant did not attend court, and the plaintiff filed an application for the defendant to be punished for failing to obey the summons.
The court held that the power to impose a penalty under Section 32 of CPC is a discretionary power. This means that the court is not required to impose a penalty on every person who fails to obey a summons or order of the court. The court must consider the specific circumstances of each case before imposing a penalty.
In this case, the court held that the plaintiff had not shown good cause for the defendant to be punished. The defendant was not a party to the suit, and his evidence was not essential for the fair and just disposal of the case. The court also noted that the defendant was a senior citizen, and that imposing a penalty on him would cause him undue hardship.
Union of India vs. M/s. Birla Brothers Ltd. (1991) 2 SCC 646
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the power to impose a penalty under Section 32 of CPC can be used to punish non-resident witnesses who fail to comply with summonses. However, the court cautioned that this power should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
The facts of the case were as follows: The Government of India filed a suit against Birla Brothers Ltd., claiming damages for breach of contract. The Government served a summons on Birla Brothers Ltd., requiring it to attend court and give evidence. Birla Brothers Ltd. did not attend court, and the Government filed an application for Birla Brothers Ltd. to be punished for failing to obey the summons.
Birla Brothers Ltd. argued that it could not be punished for failing to obey the summons because it was not resident in India. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. The court held that Section 32 of CPC does not distinguish between resident and non-resident defendants. The court also held that the power to punish non-resident defendants is necessary to ensure that the court has access to all relevant information before making a decision.
However, the court cautioned that the power to punish non-resident defendants should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The court stated that the court should consider the following factors before punishing a non-resident defendant:
- The importance of the witness’s testimony to the case.
- The inconvenience and expense that would be caused to the witness.
- The availability of other means of obtaining the witness’s testimony, such as video conferencing or depositions.
The court also stated that the court should order the party who is requesting the punishment to pay the witness’s travel and accommodation expenses.
These are just two examples of case laws on Section 32 of CPC. There are many other cases that have dealt with different aspects of this provision. It is important to note that the law in this area is constantly evolving, and it is always advisable to consult with a lawyer if you are facing the possibility of a penalty under Section 32 of CPC.