Introduction
The Karnataka Government has introduced amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as it applies in the State. These changes aim to ensure that civil cases move faster in courts, reduce unnecessary delays, and help people get justice without long waiting periods. The focus is on improving the efficiency of the justice system and making court procedures more effective for everyone involved.
These reforms also encourage the use of digital tools and settlement methods like mediation to avoid long trials wherever possible. By updating procedures and making processes smoother, the State hopes to reduce the burden on courts and improve the overall experience for litigants and lawyers. These amendments reflect Karnataka’s push towards a more modern and timely civil justice system.
In this article, we are going to discuss the key amendments made in detail and understand how it will affect the litigation in a longer period.
Karnataka CPC Amendment 2024
The amendment brings significant changes to how civil cases are handled in Karnataka. The goal is to make court procedures smoother, improve the speed of hearings, and help disputes get resolved faster. Many of the changes are similar to those used under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
A major change is related to mediation. Instead of requiring mediation before filing a case, the new rule requires parties to try mediation after the case has already been filed but only when no urgent or interim relief is needed. This ensures that parties get a fair chance to settle their dispute without going through a long trial. By encouraging settlement at an early stage, the amendment aims to reduce the load on courts and move towards quicker justice.
Section 89A
Section 89A has been added to the CPC in Karnataka to ensure that, before courts start the regular proceedings of a case, parties are given a genuine chance to settle their dispute through mediation. This happens before summons are issued to the defendants, but only in matters where there is no request for urgent interim orders and where no immediate protection is required. The main idea is that if the case is not urgent, parties should first try to resolve their issue outside the courtroom.
Section 89A states that in every suit where urgent relief is not asked for, the court must refer the matter to mediation and send notice to the defendant for the same. The State Government has the authority to notify and appoint suitable mediation bodies and these can be the ones created under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The law also clearly provides a timeline for completion of the process. The entire mediation process must be completed within two months from the date the matter is referred. If the parties feel they are close to resolving the dispute, they can mutually agree to extend the mediation for one more month.
If the parties manage to settle their dispute, the mediator must record the terms of settlement in writing. This written settlement must be signed by both parties and the mediator and then submitted back to the court. After receiving it, the court will pass a compromise decree and follow the required legal steps to formally close the case based on the settlement reached.
This newly introduced post-filing mediation process is designed to be compulsory for almost all civil suits except where immediate interim relief is essential. However, there is an important question whether every single case can be forcefully sent to mediation?
The Supreme Court, in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010), has already given guidance on this matter. The court said that while considering Alternative Dispute Resolution methods is mandatory, not all cases are suitable for mediation. It clearly listed the types of disputes that should not be diverted to ADR and those that are appropriate for mediation.
These same principles should logically apply to Section 89A as well. Although the Karnataka amendment states mediation is mandatory where no urgent relief is sought, courts should avoid sending cases to mediation that fall into the excluded categories mentioned in the Afcons judgment such as criminal allegations, disputes involving minors or persons of unsound mind, public interest matters, and other situations where settlement is legally inappropriate. In short, mandatory mediation under Section 89A is the rule, but courts must still apply practical judgment and exclude cases that are clearly unsuitable for settlement discussions.
Section 158A
Section 158A makes it clear that the changes made to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in Karnataka will apply to all civil suits in the State. This means that whenever a civil case is filed, the courts must follow the CPC as updated by the Karnataka Amendment Act. If there is any rule or previous amendment issued by the High Court that contradicts the new provisions, the newly amended CPC will take priority and must be followed.
The purpose behind Section 158A is to ensure that the new procedural rules introduced by the State are applied uniformly, without confusion or conflict with older rules. This includes rules made earlier under different legislations or High Court notifications. As a result, any older guidelines that are not in line with the new system will no longer apply to the extent that they create inconsistency.
For example, the introduction of Section 89A has now made mediation compulsory in suits where no urgent interim order is needed. This overrides the earlier requirement under the Karnataka ADR Rules, 2005, where mediation was generally taken up only after the written statement was filed. Another example is the new structure provided for timelines and case management. These updated deadlines will now take precedence over the earlier provisions found in the Case Flow Management Rules, 2005.
Section 158A ensures that the updated CPC rules are followed strictly and that older, conflicting procedures automatically give way to the new reforms. This helps bring uniformity, reduce procedural delays, and make sure that the amended CPC works smoothly across all civil courts in Karnataka.
Amendment to the First Schedule
Forms of pleading in civil courts
If the High Court rules or Practice Directions prescribe specific forms for pleadings such as plaints or written statements in a civil dispute, those forms must be strictly followed. Many High Courts already have model formats or prescribed schedules for common pleadings, and this amendment makes their use mandatory wherever they exist.
The objective is to ensure uniformity in formatting, headings, structure, and information presented in pleadings. This helps the court registry process filings faster, ensures clarity and consistency for judges, and prevents parties from using random or non-standard layouts.
If a pleading is filed in a different format despite a specific prescribed form being available, the court may direct the party to refile in the correct format. Therefore, before filing any plaint or written statement, it is now essential to check whether the jurisdiction’s High Court has a specific prescribed form and ensure compliance.
Verification of pleadings through Affidavit (Statement of truth)
This provision states that every pleading in a civil dispute, whether it is a plaint, written statement, amendment, set-off, or counterclaim, must be verified by an affidavit in the specific form prescribed in Appendix-IA. The affidavit must affirm that the statements made are true to the deponent’s personal knowledge or belief.
This ensures accountability, as false statements in the affidavit can attract consequences under laws relating to perjury and false evidence. The party themselves may sign the affidavit or by a person who is well acquainted with the facts and is duly authorised.
In case of companies or organisations, a director or authorised officer may sign and their relationship with the party and knowledge of facts should be clearly mentioned. If pleadings are amended, the newly added or altered parts must also be verified through a fresh affidavit unless the court specifically relaxes this requirement in exceptional circumstances.
A very important consequence introduced here is that if a pleading is not verified by the required affidavit, the party filing it cannot rely upon those pleadings as evidence in the proceedings. This means that even if the pleading is on record, the facts stated in it may not be accepted by the court for proving the case.
Additionally, the court also has the express power to strike out pleadings that are not properly verified. A pleading being struck out could result in a party losing its entire claim or defence, making verification a critical and mandatory compliance step. In practice, lawyers must now ensure that no pleading is filed without an accompanying verification affidavit in the prescribed form to avoid serious adverse consequences.
Additional requirements in a plaint and details for interest claims
The plaintiff is now required to provide detailed personal particulars in the plaint, including their name, description, place of residence, identity proof, mobile number, and email address. This requirement enhances traceability and prevents misuse of false identities in litigation.
Similarly, the defendant’s name, description, place of residence, mobile number, and email address should also be included to the extent the plaintiff is able to ascertain such details. This makes it easier for the court to ensure proper service of summons, reduces delays in communication, and facilitates electronic notices.
A new Rule 2-AA has been inserted for suits involving monetary claims where interest is sought. A plaintiff must expressly state that interest is being claimed and must specify the legal basis for claiming such interest whether under a contract, under a statute (with specific provision), under Section 34 CPC, or any other legal entitlement.
Further, precise details must be provided including the exact rate of interest, the date from which interest is claimed, the date up to which it is calculated, the total amount of interest accrued up to that date, and the daily rate at which interest would continue to accrue after that date until payment or decree. These requirements ensure complete transparency in interest claims and prevent vague, inflated, or arbitrary computations. Plaintiffs are now expected to attach a clear interest calculation statement so that the defendant and the court can readily verify the claim.
Time limit for written statement and stricter rules of denial
Order VIII Rule 1 is amended to provide that while a written statement should ordinarily be filed within 30 days of service of summons, the court may grant an extension for valid reasons recorded in writing and impose costs. However, the written statement cannot be taken on record after 120 days from the date of service. This 120-day deadline is absolute and non-extendable, which means that a defendant who misses this time limit effectively loses the right to file a defence. This discourages delay tactics and accelerates case progress.
There are also significant changes regarding denial of allegations in the plaint. A new Rule 3-A requires the defendant to specifically state which allegations are denied, which are admitted, and which are not within their knowledge and require proof. Denials must not be vague if an allegation is denied, the defendant must give reasons for such denial and provide their own version of the facts. If jurisdiction or valuation of the suit is disputed, the defendant must explain why and suggest the correct jurisdiction or valuation. These amendments ensure that the real points of dispute are identified early and relevant issues are narrowed down for trial.
Order VIII Rule 5 clarifies that any allegation in the plaint that is not specifically denied in the prescribed manner will be treated as admitted, except where the defendant is under a legal disability. This means silence or a blanket denial may amount to admission of facts, which could prove fatal to the defence. Finally, Order VIII Rule 10 reinforces that the court cannot extend time for filing a written statement beyond what is provided under Rule 1, thereby upholding the finality of the 120-day limit.
In the 2005 case of Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) vs. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court held that the time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was directory and not mandatory. This meant that even if a defendant failed to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the court still had the discretion to allow it later, since the law did not specify any strict consequence for delay or restrict the court’s power.
However, in SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2019), the Supreme Court took a stricter view, especially in the context of commercial disputes. The court held that once 120 days from the date of service of summons have passed, the defendant forfeits the right to file a written statement, and the court has no power to extend time or accept it thereafter. In simple terms, while earlier the timeline was flexible, the 2019 judgment made the 120-day limit absolute and non-negotiable.
Appendix – IA
After both parties finish filing their pleadings (meaning the defendant has filed the written statement and issues are ready to be framed), the court must hold the first Case Management Hearing within four weeks. This hearing marks the beginning of managing the timetable of the case.
During this hearing, the court listens to both sides and, if it finds that there are issues of fact or law that need to be decided, it will pass necessary orders. These include:
- Framing the issues in dispute after checking the pleadings and documents. If required, the parties may be asked to submit draft issues.
- Listing out the witnesses that each party wants to bring.
- Giving dates for filing evidence by way of affidavits.
- Scheduling dates for recording the witnesses’ evidence.
- Fixing dates for filing written arguments.
- Fixing dates for oral arguments before the court.
- Setting a time limit within which oral arguments must be completed.
While fixing dates, the court must ensure that the entire trial including completion of evidence and arguments gets over within 24 months from the first Case Management Hearing. The court should try its best to record the witnesses’ evidence continuously either every day or weekly, until all cross-examinations are completed. This prevents unnecessary delays.
Even during the trial, the court can hold additional Case Management Hearings to make sure everyone is sticking to the schedule and the case moves quickly.
The court has wide powers during these hearings, such as:
- Deciding pending applications before framing issues.
- Asking both sides to file only necessary documents for framing issues.
- Increasing or reducing time limits if there is a valid reason.
- Advancing or postponing hearings when needed.
- Calling a party personally for questioning under Order X Rule 2.
- Combining connected cases to avoid duplication.
- Removing unnecessary witnesses or evidence.
- Ordering separate trials for specific issues if useful.
- Deciding the order in which issues will be tried.
- Dropping issues that do not need to be considered.
- Passing a judgment if a preliminary issue decides the case.
- Sending recording of evidence to a commissioner if necessary.
- Rejecting or removing irrelevant or improper parts of evidence affidavits.
- Appointing an authority to record evidence and supervise it.
- Passing any order that helps in smooth and speedy disposal of the case.
The court can also attach conditions to its orders, like asking a party to deposit money, and can fix what will happen if the party fails to follow the order. If the court feels settlement is possible, it can ask the parties to attend personally in such a hearing.
The court will not postpone the hearing just because a lawyer is absent.
If a party wants an adjournment:
- They must apply in advance
- The court may allow it but may impose costs
The court may still grant an adjournment if the lawyer has a genuine and justified reason, subject to terms fixed by the court.
Power of the state government to make rules
The State Government has the power to make rules to ensure the smooth implementation of this Act. These rules are issued through an official government notification. The State Government may create rules regarding the procedure of mediation under Section 89A, along with any other matters for which rules are required under the Act.
Once such rules are made, they must be presented before both Houses of the State Legislature for a total period of thirty days while the Legislature is in session. This period can fall within a single session or be spread across multiple sessions. If, during this time, both Houses decide to modify the rule or reject it, then the rule will take effect only in its modified form or will become ineffective, depending on their decision. However, anything already done under that rule before the modification or cancellation will continue to remain valid.
Conclusion
The Karnataka CPC Amendment 2024 marks a major shift toward faster and more efficient civil justice in the State. By tightening deadlines, improving pleadings, and requiring mediation where possible, the reforms aim to reduce unnecessary delays. The introduction of case management ensures better control of trials and accountability for both parties and lawyers. These changes also promote transparency, responsible litigation, and early resolution of disputes. Overall, the new system strengthens access to justice and brings Karnataka closer to a modern, streamlined judicial process.
