Skip to content
LAW LIBRARY.Online
Central Act · India · PRELIMINARY — Preliminary

Section 4 CPC Savings

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 · Edition: User-supplied Law Library CPC page, attributed to India Code as on 10 January 2026; retrieved 6 November 2026

(1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the proposition contained in sub-section (1), nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any remedy which a landholder or landlord may have under any law for the time being in force for the recovery of rent of agricultural land from the produce of such land.

Source document ↗

Judgments on Section 4

LOK 2019 (4) SC 21 · Supreme Court of India

Pawan Kumar v. Babulal Since Deceased Through Lrs. And Ors.

Equivalent citations: 2019 INSC 454 : JT 2019 (4) SC 14 : 2019 KLT (Online) 3003 : 2019 (5) Scale 672 : (2019) 4 SCC 367 : 2019 (263) Taxman 354 : 2019 KHC 3050

SubjectBenami Transactions, Civil Procedure
JudgesJustice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra
ActsBenami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (Section 4; Section 4(3)(b)); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order VII Rule 11)

The appellant sued for a declaration that he owned a shop purchased in the name of his father, the first defendant, pleading that he had funded the purchase himself and that his father had executed a writing in 2002 acknowledging his ownership; he also sought cancellation of a 2006 sale deed executed by the father in favour of the second defendant. Nine years after filing his written statement, the second defendant applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The trial court rejected the plaint and the High Court affirmed, holding that the suit was clearly hit by Section 4.

LOK 1950 (9) Ker. 142 · High Court of Kerala

Gopalan v. Sanku

Equivalent citations: 1950 KLR 83 : 1950 KLT 513 : 6 DLR TC 28 : AIR 1951 TC 32

SubjectProperty Law
Judges–
ActsCochin Civil Procedure Code S.9 Cochin Tenancy Act S.4 Cochin Limitation Act Art.131

Second title suit for possession is barred by res judicata and limitation after execution of earlier title decree expired.