Section 94 CPC: Supplemental proceedings

Section 94 of Code of Civil Procedure: Supplemental proceedings

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,—

(a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;

(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property;

(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold;

(d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;

(e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Order Sec 2(14) Judgment Sec 2(9)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 94

Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines the supplemental proceedings available to civil courts to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated during the pendency of a suit.

Core Legal Standard: The phrase 'if it is so prescribed' anchors Section 94 to the First Schedule: arrest and attachment before judgment are prescribed in Order XXXVIII; temporary injunctions in Order XXXIX; and receivers in Order XL.
Operational Application: Section 94 acts as the substantive statutory parent for all First Schedule interlocutory powers.

While specific procedural mechanics are regulated by Orders 38, 39, and 40, Section 94 ensures that civil courts possess the full spectrum of emergency powers—from asset freezes to receiverships—to prevent defendants from rendering final decrees illusory.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527: The 4-Judge Bench held that Section 94 does not exhaust the court's power to grant injunctions; where Order XXXIX does not apply, the court has inherent power under Section 151 to grant injunctions in appropriate cases to prevent ends of justice from being defeated.
Padam Sen v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 218: The Supreme Court held that supplemental powers under Section 94 must be exercised strictly in accordance with prescribed rules and cannot invade substantive rights without statutory authority.

Legal Commentary:

Section 94 provides the constitutional framework for preserving subject-matter in dispute. While specific procedural mechanics are regulated by Orders 38, 39, and 40, Section 94 ensures that civil courts possess the full spectrum of emergency powers—from asset freezes to receiverships—to prevent defendants from rendering final decrees illusory.

Section 94: Supplemental proceedings

Section 94 of Code of Civil Procedure: Supplemental proceedings

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 94