The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) governs civil procedure in India and contains specific Orders that regulate processes ancillary to the main pleadings and trial. Orders XXIV, XXV and XXVI address three interrelated practical subjects: payment into court and incidental proceedings enabling a defendant to satisfy a plaintiff’s claim or to avoid accrual of further obligations, security for costs designed to protect a defendant from vexatious or impecunious plaintiffs, and the issue and administration of commissions which the court may direct for various investigatory or ministerial tasks. Together these Orders are designed to promote the efficient administration of justice by facilitating settlement where appropriate, preventing abuse of court process, and providing mechanisms for fact-finding that cannot conveniently be performed by the court itself.

Order XXIV of the CPC, commonly titled “Payment into Court,” enables a defendant in a suit for the recovery of debt or damages to deposit money in court as a payment in satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim. This facility may be invoked at any stage of the suit and operates as an offer of satisfaction of the claim, although courts retain discretion to direct that the deposited sum be paid to the plaintiff or to withhold payment pending adjudication of competing claims or questions about rights to the sum. The statutory scheme requires the defendant to give notice to the plaintiff of the deposit, and unless the court otherwise directs, the court will pay the sum to the plaintiff on his application.

The payment into court has practical consequences: by depositing a sum that the defendant regards as adequate, the defendant can arrest the accrual of future interest on the sum so deposited and mitigate the risk of enforcement measures while litigation continues. Courts have treated such deposits as a mechanism for protecting defendants from excessive coercive steps by decree-holders provided that proper notice and procedures are followed. The official consolidated text of the CPC and regularly maintained bare acts set out the precise language and structure of Order XXIV.

Order XXV, titled “Security for Costs,” furnishes the court with power to order that security be furnished by a plaintiff for the costs of the defendant. The rule empowers the court, on its own motion or upon application by the defendant, to order a party to furnish security for costs if the court is satisfied that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside India and will not be able to pay costs if ordered to do so, or if the plaintiff has no visible means of satisfying costs, or where the plaintiff takes steps which may be oppressive or vexatious. Security for costs is a protective device; it is not punitive and the court must exercise the power with circumspection so as not to deprive access to justice. The power to order security is ordinarily exercised where a defendant can show substance to a claim that the plaintiff is unlikely to satisfy an adverse costs order, or where the plaintiff’s domicile or conduct suggests a risk of non-payment.

The principle is that access to the forum should not be denied arbitrarily, but the defendant is entitled to reasonable safeguards against the cost of unjustified litigation. Recent procedural jurisprudence continues to stress a balancing exercise—courts must weigh prejudice to the defendant from absence of security against prejudice to the plaintiff from being deprived of his right to litigate.

Order XXVI concerns commissions and incidental proceedings for the examination of witnesses, local investigation, valuation and other actions the court may direct an officer or Commissioner to undertake. Courts commonly issue commissions when witnesses reside beyond the court’s local limits, when witnesses are infirm, when inspection or local investigation is necessary to ascertain facts such as market value, mesne profits, or condition of property, or when it is otherwise expedient in the interest of justice. The statutory provisions permit a court to appoint a commissioner and to frame terms of reference which the commissioner must follow.

The Code contemplates that commissions will be issued sparingly but flexibly, and some State amendments have expanded the circumstances in which commissions may be used — for example, allowing commissions even for persons within the local limits in exceptional circumstances so as to expedite proceedings. The law recognises that evidence collected under commission is admissible and can be used by the court, subject to established safeguards for cross-examination and verification. The court may order payment of estimated expenses into court to cover the costs of a commission, and the commissioner’s report is receivable as evidence when properly authenticated.

Historically, the CPC has undergone procedural reforms which affected these Orders. The amendments enacted in 1999 and 2002 clarified and streamlined a number of interlocutory procedures, including the court’s power to issue commissions in a wider variety of circumstances and to require deposits for their expenses. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and its scheme for commercial disputes also modified application of certain CPC provisions in commercial matters, often prescribing stricter timelines and disclosure obligations.

These reforms reflect a larger policy of expediting proceedings, encouraging early settlement where practicable, and ensuring that interlocutory devices operate in a manner consistent with efficient case management. When a statutory change or High Court rule alters how a particular Order may be applied in a given State or category of dispute, practitioners must consult the latest consolidated bare act and state amendments to be sure of current practice.

At the practical level, payment into court, security for costs and commissions intersect with other procedural rules and litigation strategy. A defendant who deposits a sum into court under Order XXIV must observe the notice requirements and should anticipate that the plaintiff may seek immediate payment; a court may, however, in appropriate cases retain the sum until the resolution of a claim by another having a competing interest in the funds. Practical difficulties can arise where the defendant deposits sums but the plaintiff resists on the ground that the amount is inadequate, or where third parties assert prior rights. In such cases courts will order inquiries, preserve the sums, and determine entitlement in a manner that respects due process.

Security for costs under Order XXV is frequently invoked where foreign plaintiffs sue or where there is material to suggest that the plaintiff lacks assets to meet costs. The procedure for seeking security typically requires an application supported by affidavit and material which establishes the risk of non-payment; the court then hears the matter and may impose a reasonable amount by way of security, or decline the application if access to justice would otherwise be impeded. Courts also decide whether to grant an interim order for attachment or other relief while the application for security is determined, depending on urgency and potential prejudice.

Commissions under Order XXVI often involve practical and administrative directions. The appointing order will specify the commissioner, his term of reference, whether he is to take evidence under oath or to perform a physical inspection, the manner in which reports are to be transmitted, and the schedule for payment of fees. The court may require that a sum be paid into court in advance to cover anticipated expenses and compensation for the commissioner. Experience shows that well-drafted commission references and clear directions reduce the risk of challenges to the report on grounds of procedural irregularity.

Three recurring themes have emerged in modern jurisprudence on these Orders. First, courts are attentive to the need for procedural fairness and the protection of third parties. Orders that directly affect proprietary rights, such as payment into court where a third party claims the same funds, or commissions that interfere with property rights during local investigations, must be exercised with care. Second, courts adopt a balancing approach when ordering security for costs, eschewing rigid formulas in favour of a contextual evaluation of prejudice and access to justice. Third, courts exercise supervisory control to ensure that these interlocutory remedies are not used to cause delay. Where a party employs these devices for obstructive purposes, courts have refused indulgence and have imposed costs or refused relief.

Students and practitioners must therefore master both the black letter of Orders XXIV to XXVI and the practical case-law applying them. The statutory text sets out the framework, but present-day application is shaped by judicial guidance and State-specific procedural rules. When advising clients, practitioners should check the latest consolidated CPC, relevant High Court rules, and recent decisions that interpret or qualify the exercise of power under these Orders. The interplay between deposit, security, and commission procedures makes these Orders a core part of interlocutory litigation strategy, with an emphasis on promptness, clarity in judicial directions, and the protection of substantive rights while preserving judicial resources.

20 Multiple Choice Questions (with options, answers and brief explanations)

1. Which Order of the Code of Civil Procedure deals specifically with payment into court?
   A. Order XXIII B. Order XXIV C. Order XXV D. Order XXVI
   Answer: B. Explanation: Payment into court is governed by Order XXIV CPC.
2. A defendant may deposit money in court under Order XXIV generally for the purpose of:
   A. Avoiding service of summons B. Satisfaction of plaintiff’s claim C. Filing an appeal D. Initiating execution proceedings
   Answer: B. Explanation: The deposit is made as an offer of satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim and to halt further interest or coercive steps.
3. Who must be notified when a defendant makes a payment into court under Order XXIV?
   A. The appellate court B. The police C. The plaintiff D. The defendant’s banker
   Answer: C. Explanation: The defendant must notify the plaintiff of the deposit; notice procedures ensure procedural fairness.
4. Order XXV of the CPC empowers the court to order security for costs to be furnished by:
   A. The defendant B. The plaintiff C. The judge D. The registrar
   Answer: B. Explanation: Security for costs is a remedy that the court can direct the plaintiff to furnish to protect the defendant from non-payment of costs.
5. A common ground for ordering security for costs under Order XXV is:
   A. The plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside India B. The defendant is insolvent C. The court is biased D. The suit is undefended
   Answer: A. Explanation: Residency outside India with a risk of inability to pay costs is a classic ground for security.
6. Courts will order security for costs:
   A. As a matter of routine in every suit B. Only after a criminal conviction C. After considering the risk of non-payment versus access to justice D. Only against corporate plaintiffs
   Answer: C. Explanation: The court balances prejudice to defendant with plaintiff’s right to litigate and orders security only where justified.
7. Order XXVI governs:
   A. Payment into court B. Security for costs C. Commissions for evidence and local investigations D. Execution of decrees
   Answer: C. Explanation: Order XXVI relates to commissions, including examination of witnesses and local investigations.
8. A court may issue a commission to examine a witness who:
   A. Is conveniently present in court B. Resides outside the court’s local limits C. Has already testified D. Is the plaintiff’s counsel
   Answer: B. Explanation: Commissions are commonly issued when witnesses reside beyond the local limits or are unable to attend.
9. Before issuing a commission, the court often requires:
   A. Payment of estimated expenses into court B. The judge’s retirement C. Dismissal of the suit D. A separate parliamentary order
   Answer: A. Explanation: Rule provisions permit the court to require payment into court to cover commission expenses.
10. Evidence taken under a commission is:
    A. Never admissible B. Admissible if properly authenticated and within the terms of reference C. Automatically conclusive D. Only usable in criminal cases
    Answer: B. Explanation: Commission reports are receivable as evidence when the commission was properly directed and the report authenticated.
11. A defendant who deposits an amount into court thereby:
    A. Loses right to appeal B. Automatically wins the suit C. Offers satisfaction but the court may still decide entitlement D. Is immune from all further process
    Answer: C. Explanation: Deposit is an offer of satisfaction; the court may still adjudicate competing legal questions and rights.
12. Security for costs is primarily designed to:
    A. Punish plaintiffs B. Ensure defendant is paid costs if successful C. Replace substantive trial D. Fund legal aid
    Answer: B. Explanation: It protects defendants’ interests in being able to recover costs if they win.
13. Commissions may be issued for local investigation to:
    A. Determine market value B. Decide jurisdiction C. Draft the plaint D. Replace cross-examination entirely
    Answer: A. Explanation: Local investigations frequently ascertain facts like market value or condition of property.
14. The 1999/2002 amendments to CPC affected which of these?
    A. The power to issue commissions and procedural timelines B. Criminal sentencing C. Taxation law D. Cabotage rights
    Answer: A. Explanation: Amendments clarified and modernised several interlocutory procedures including commissions and timelines.
15. If third parties claim rights to monies deposited into court, the court will:
    A. Pay the plaintiff immediately without inquiry B. Conduct necessary inquiries and decide entitlement C. Return the money to the defendant automatically D. Dismiss the suit
    Answer: B. Explanation: Courts must protect third-party rights and adjudicate entitlement before releasing funds.
16. A court will refuse a commission if:
    A. It is unnecessary or would be oppressive or irrelevant B. The party asks politely C. The witness is wealthy D. The case is commercial
    Answer: A. Explanation: Commissions are discretionary and should not be used oppressively or merely to delay.
17. When considering security for costs, courts may require:
    A. Large up-front seizure of the plaintiff’s entire estate B. A reasonable deposit or bank guarantee proportionate to the risk C. The plaintiff’s immediate imprisonment D. Appointment of a receiver over plaintiff’s assets
    Answer: B. Explanation: Security must be reasonable and proportionate, often a deposit or bank guarantee.
18. If a commissioner’s report is defective procedurally, a party may:
    A. Never challenge it B. Apply to the court to exclude or test the report through cross-examination or further inquiry C. Appeal to the United Nations D. Ignore the trial judge
    Answer: B. Explanation: Parties can challenge reports and courts may order further inquiry or exclude improper material.
19. A deposit in court to stop interest from accruing is permitted under:
    A. Order XXIII B. Order XXIV C. Order XIX D. Order XXVI
    Answer: B. Explanation: Order XXIV expressly contemplates deposit to arrest future interest on the sum deposited.
20. The overarching objective of Orders XXIV–XXVI is to:
    A. Delay litigation indefinitely B. Provide practical interlocutory mechanisms that protect rights, expedite proceedings and assist fact-finding C. Replace merits adjudication D. Penalize third parties
    Answer: B. Explanation: These Orders are intended to facilitate fair, efficient and orderly conduct of civil litigation.