Revisiting the CPC, 1908: The Need for Procedural Reform in Indian Civil Justice System

Author : Gurleen (BBALLB) The ICFAI University, Dehradun

Abstract

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 forms the backbone of India’s civil justice system, yet its century-old framework struggles to meet the demands of modern, complex, and technology-driven disputes. This article examines the key procedural issues within the CPC—such as excessive formalism, inefficient summons service, cumbersome evidence procedures, slow decree execution, underutilization of ADR, and lack of technological integration—that contribute to delays and pendency. It argues for comprehensive procedural reform through digitization, simplification, and structural changes aimed at enhancing efficiency, transparency, access to justice, and judicial accountability. The article further outlines proposed reforms and their expected outcomes, emphasizing the urgent need to modernize the CPC to build a robust, citizen-centric, and future-ready civil justice system in India.

Introduction

The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) 1908 is procedural law that governs the functioning of civil courts in India. It lays down rules and procedures for administration of civil justice including filing of suits, service of summons, pleadings, trial and execution of decrees. The CPC aims to ensure fair and expeditious resolution of civil disputes while upholding principles of natural justice.

Justice is one of the fundamental human rights which is dependent upon the fair, speedy & smooth forum to administer justice. Civil justice is needed when the civil right is infringed. To provide the proper remedy to the litigants the court structure & procedures have developed. However, the problem lies in the fact that the machines providing justice are themselves deceitful which causes injustice in the way of delay, complexity & expensiveness.

These problems stem from the defects lying within the civil justice system. Many attempts have been taken by different states & some are yet to be taken. But the complete solution of the problems is still a matter of hope. So opting for finding the actual causes & better solution this article has been designed for.

Key Issues Identified in CPC,1908

1. Excessive Procedural Formalism Leading to Delays

The CPC contains several provisions that, while intended to ensure fairness, have become overly rigid and time-consuming. Courts often strictly adhere to procedural technicalities, which causes unnecessary delays.

Key Loopholes / Problematic Provisions

• Order VI & VII (Pleadings and Plaint) – Overly technical requirements for pleadings result in frequent objections, amendments, and re-filings, delaying the commencement of trial.
• Order VIII Rule 1 (Written Statement) – Though the Supreme Court has stressed filing within 90 days, courts often extend time, causing delays in framing issues.
• Order XIV (Framing of Issues) – Courts sometimes frame issues broadly or incorrectly, leading to re-framing and repeated hearings.

Why It Causes Delays

• Technical objections derail substantive justice.
• Frequent amendments under Order VI Rule 17 slow proceedings.
• Procedural irregularities become grounds for appeal or revision.

2. Inefficient Service of Summons Resulting in Repeated Adjournments

Service of summons remains one of the most time-consuming stages of a civil suit. Traditional reliance on physical or personal service often fails, leading courts to grant repeated adjournments.

Key Loopholes / Problematic Provisions

• Order V (Issue and Service of Summons)
   Requires personal, registered post, or courier service that often fails due to incorrect addresses, refusal, or logistical inefficiencies.
• Order V Rule 19A allows service via registered post but is still slow and outdated.
• Order V Rule 20 (Substituted Service)
   Courts use this only after several failed attempts, causing months of delay.

Why It Causes Delays

• Summons often return unserved multiple times.
• Courts are hesitant to shift to electronic modes.
• Litigants exploit the loophole of “unserved summons” to delay proceedings.

3. Cumbersome Evidence-Taking Process, Especially in Physical Form

Recording evidence is one of the most time-intensive stages due to reliance on physical documents, paper books, and oral depositions in court.

Key Loopholes / Problematic Provisions

• Order XIII (Documentary Evidence)
   Requires physical production of documents, attestation, and marking, which is slow.
  
• Order XVIII (Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses)
   Witness examination requires physical presence and lengthy adjournments.
• Section 65B of the Evidence Act (not CPC but relevant) complicates admissibility of electronic evidence.

Why It Causes Delays

• Witnesses do not appear on scheduled dates.
• Cross-examinations may stretch over months.
• Physical evidence handling wastes judicial time.
• Lack of video-recording, digital evidence rooms, and online submission systems.

4. Slow Execution of Decrees – Justice Delayed After Judgement

Even after winning a case, decree-holders face long delays in getting actual relief due to cumbersome execution procedures.

Key Loopholes / Problematic Provisions

• Order XXI (Execution of Decrees and Orders)
   Known as one of the lengthiest and most complex parts of CPC.
• Order XXI Rules 64–69 (Auction and attachment) often involve repeated postponements, valuation disputes, and objections.
• Order XXI Rule 97–101 (Resistance to execution)
   Third-party objections can drag on for years.

Why It Causes Delays

• Judgment-debtors file frivolous objections to delay execution.
• Auctions are often delayed due to procedural requirements.
• Lack of accountability in enforcement mechanisms.

5. Underutilization of ADR Mechanisms Despite Statutory Provisions

Though CPC promotes settlement and ADR, courts rarely enforce these provisions meaningfully.

Key Loopholes / Problematic Provisions

• Section 89 CPC (Settlement of Disputes outside the Court)
   Makes reference to arbitration, mediation, or conciliation possible, but not mandatory, leading to inconsistent implementation.
• Order X Rule 1A–1C (Referral to ADR)
   Courts often skip this stage or treat it as a mere formality.

Why It Causes Delays

• Judges hesitate to push parties toward ADR.
• Parties treat ADR as an optional or weak alternative.
• Lack of trained mediators and modern mediation centres.

Result: Courts face unnecessary burdens, increasing pendency.

6. Lack of Technological Integration Across Courts Nationwide

While e-Courts and virtual hearings exist, integration is incomplete, inconsistent, and limited mostly to higher courts.

Key Loopholes / Problematic Provisions

• CPC does not contain explicit provisions supporting:
  • e-filing
  • digital service of summons
  • virtual hearings
  • video-recorded evidence
• Judges rely heavily on traditional interpretations due to lack of statutory backing.

Why It Causes Delays

• Digitization is uneven across states and districts
• Absence of uniform online systems creates confusion.
• Paper-based procedures continue even in cases suitable for digital processes

Need for Procedural Reform in the Indian Civil Justice System

The demand for procedural reform in the Indian civil justice system stems from the growing disconnect between the modern nature of disputes and the century-old procedures entrenched in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. While the CPC was a path-breaking legislation for its time, the contemporary legal landscape requires mechanisms that are faster, more adaptive, and technologically efficient.

1. Modern Disputes Require Quick and Effective Resolution: In today’s world, civil disputes are far more complex, high-value, and time-sensitive than those contemplated in 1908. Commercial transactions, digital contracts, intellectual property conflicts, and cross-border disputes demand speed and precision. Delay not only affects litigants individually but also impacts business confidence, economic growth, and social trust in the judiciary. The traditional, highly formalistic procedures of the CPC often fail to match the urgency required for modern disputes. Therefore, reform is necessary to ensure that the justice system remains responsive and relevant in a rapidly evolving socio-economic environment.
2. Technology Integration Can Reduce Human Error and Administrative Delay: One of the most compelling reasons for procedural reform is the transformative potential of technology. Digitizing processes such as e-filing, electronic service of summons, online case tracking, video-conferencing for hearings, and electronic preservation of evidence can drastically reduce administrative workload and eliminate human-induced delays. Technology also enhances transparency and accuracy, preventing manipulation or loss of documents—problems commonly associated with paper-based procedures. Successful models from e-Courts Phase II and virtual hearings during the pandemic highlight how technology can streamline judicial processes if integrated uniformly and systematically.
3. Simplifying Procedures Can Increase Access to Justice: The current procedural framework of the CPC is often criticized for being complex, rigid, and inaccessible to ordinary citizens. Complicated pleadings, technical objections, and lengthy forms discourage litigants and create dependency on lawyers for even basic processes. Simplifying and rationalizing procedural rules can make the civil justice system more citizen-friendly, reducing costs and barriers to entry. A simplified procedure also supports marginalized groups, rural litigants, and socio-economically disadvantaged communities who struggle to navigate an overly technical system.
4. Procedural Reform Is Essential for Improving India’s Justice Delivery Indicators: India continues to rank low on several international indices relating to rule of law, contract enforcement, and judicial efficiency. The Ease of Doing Business Index and the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index consistently highlight India’s slow civil dispute resolution mechanism as a major obstacle. Procedural reform, therefore, is not just an internal necessity but also a global imperative. Streamlining processes, enforcing time-bound stages of trial, enhancing case management, and strengthening execution mechanisms will improve the overall performance of India’s justice system and bolster international confidence in its legal processes.

Proposed Reforms in the Civil Justice System

To ensure a swift, modern, and citizen-centric civil justice system, several procedural reforms must be introduced in the CPC and its implementation. The following reforms are essential to align India’s justice delivery with contemporary needs and global standards.

Mandatory E-Filing and Digital Case Management Systems Across All Courts

One of the most transformative reforms is the mandatory adoption of e-filing in all courts, from district courts to the Supreme Court. E-filing reduces paperwork, minimizes clerical errors, and enables litigants to file cases from remote areas without physically visiting the court. Alongside e-filing, digital case management systems will allow judges and lawyers to track case progress, update hearing dates, and manage documents efficiently. This will create a paperless, transparent, and accessible system, drastically reducing administrative burden and the risk of misplaced files.

Time-Bound Service of Summons Using Electronic Modes and Automated Tracking

The current system of serving summons is one of the biggest causes of delay. Introducing electronic service of summons—via email, mobile SMS, WhatsApp (as courts have started accepting), and other verified digital platforms—can ensure faster and more reliable communication. An automated tracking system will allow courts to monitor delivery status in real time, reducing repeated adjournments caused by unserved summons. Time-bound rules will ensure that summons are served within fixed deadlines, preventing litigants from exploiting procedural loopholes.

Wider Adoption of Virtual Hearings for Interlocutory and Non-Evidence Matters

Virtual hearings proved extremely effective during the pandemic, demonstrating that many stages of a civil case—such as interim applications, procedural hearings, or listing matters—do not require physical presence. Making virtual hearings a permanent feature for non-evidence-related matters will save travel time, reduce court congestion, and improve judicial efficiency. Hybrid models can be introduced, giving litigants the option to choose physical or virtual appearances where appropriate.

Simplification of Pleadings and Procedural Forms for User-Friendly Litigation

The procedural framework under the CPC often involves complex pleadings, lengthy applications, and technical forms that are difficult for ordinary citizens to understand. Reforming these into simpler, standardized formats would make the system more citizen-centric. Uniform templates for plaints, written statements, affidavits, and applications will reduce drafting errors and objections, thereby shortening the initial stages of litigation. A simpler structure promotes transparency, reduces dependency on technical legal expertise, and allows the courts to focus on substantive justice rather than procedural compliance.

Strengthening ADR Mechanisms Like Mediation and Conciliation Before Trial

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) plays a crucial role in reducing the burden on courts and ensuring quicker resolution of disputes. However, ADR under Section 89 CPC remains underutilized. Strengthening ADR requires:

• Mandatory pre-litigation mediation in suitable cases,
• Establishing dedicated mediation centres in every district,
• Training mediators and building online mediation platforms.

This would help resolve disputes at an early stage, reduce costs for litigants, and allow courts to focus on cases that genuinely require adjudication.

Reform in Execution Proceedings to Reduce Post-Judgment Delays

Even after obtaining a decree, litigants often face years of delay during the execution process. Reforming execution proceedings under Order XXI CPC is therefore crucial. Measures such as time-bound execution timelines, digitization of property records, online auction platforms, and streamlined procedures for attachment and possession will ensure that decrees are enforced without unnecessary delays. Strengthening accountability mechanisms for judgment-debtors and restricting frivolous objections can significantly expedite this stage.

Training Judges and Lawyers in Digital Processes for Effective Transition

The success of procedural reform depends heavily on the capacity-building of judicial officers, court staff, and lawyers. Comprehensive training programs on digital tools, virtual court management, e-evidence, and cybersecurity are essential. Without adequate technological literacy, even the best reforms may fail to deliver effective results. Continuous training will ensure smoother adoption of digital systems and enhance the overall competence of the judiciary.

Expected Outcomes of Procedural Reform in the Civil Justice System

The implementation of comprehensive procedural reforms in the civil justice system promises to transform the functioning of courts and significantly improve the quality of justice delivery in India. The following are the key expected outcomes that highlight the broader impact of these reforms:

1. Faster Case Disposal and Reduced Pendency: One of the most significant outcomes of procedural reform is the substantial reduction in case pendency. India’s courts currently deal with an overwhelming backlog, much of which arises from procedural complexities, outdated methods of summons service, adjournments, and delays in evidence collection. By introducing simplified procedures, time-bound stages, electronic filing, and efficient case management systems, courts will be able to dispose of cases more swiftly. This will not only improve the speed of adjudication but also ensure that justice is not denied through prolonged delays—a core principle of the justice system.
2. Increased Transparency and Accountability in Civil Proceedings: Digital reforms such as e-filing, automated case tracking, electronic service of summons, and online records bring a new level of transparency to the justice process. When litigants can view the status of their cases in real time, track filings, or monitor document submissions, the possibility of manipulation or administrative errors significantly decreases. Technology also introduces accountability by making procedural steps traceable and verifiable. Judges, lawyers, and court staff become more responsible for timely actions, reducing opportunities for procedural misuse or intentional delays. As a result, the civil justice system becomes more open, reliable, and trustworthy.
3. Enhanced Access to Justice, Especially for Litigants in Remote Areas: Procedural reform, particularly through technological integration, makes justice more accessible to individuals living in rural or remote regions. Virtual hearings reduce the need for physical presence in court, enabling litigants to participate in proceedings without incurring travel costs or losing daily wages. E-filing systems allow documents to be submitted from anywhere, eliminating geographical barriers. By simplifying pleadings and reducing procedural formalities, even individuals with limited legal understanding can engage with the system more easily. Thus, reforms democratize access to justice and empower marginalized communities.
4. Improved Efficiency of the Judiciary and Greater Public Trust: When courts function efficiently, with quicker resolution of disputes and minimal procedural delays, public confidence in the judiciary naturally increases. A transparent, technology-driven, and time-sensitive system strengthens the credibility of judicial institutions. It signals a shift toward a more modern, responsive, and accountable justice framework that aligns with global standards. Improved efficiency also enhances India’s reputation internationally, especially in areas such as contract enforcement and commercial dispute resolution, which are crucial for economic development.

Conclusion

Revisiting the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not merely a desirable initiative—it has become an essential step toward building a modern, responsive, and efficient civil justice framework. The CPC, although foundational and historically significant, now struggles to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving society where disputes are more complex, time-sensitive, and intertwined with modern technology. Reforming its procedural structure is therefore vital to ensure that justice delivery does not remain trapped in outdated mechanisms.

Procedural reform, particularly when supported by technological integration and simplification of processes, has the potential to fundamentally transform civil litigation in India. By adopting e-filing, virtual hearings, standardized forms, digital evidence systems, and time-bound procedures, the judiciary can dramatically reduce delays and remove longstanding bottlenecks. These reforms can make civil proceedings more accessible to ordinary citizens, especially those from remote or marginalized backgrounds, while also enhancing transparency and accountability within the system.

A restructured and modernized CPC will play an instrumental role in strengthening India’s rule-of-law ecosystem. It will not only improve public trust in the justice delivery system but also elevate India’s position globally in terms of judicial efficiency and legal infrastructure. Ultimately, the goal of these reforms is to build a civil justice system that is not only fair in its outcomes but also swift, accessible, and aligned with contemporary realities. Such a transformation is crucial for ensuring that justice in India is truly efficient and meaningful in the 21st century.