In such a situation, the court does not only consider whether your rights have been violated, but also looks into what the appropriate process for securing justice should be.
In India, the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an important law connected to this very process.
Often, law students and competitive exam aspirants ask this question –
Is this Act only a substantive law or procedural as well?
In this blog, we will explore the answer to this very question — why the Specific Relief Act is considered a procedural law, and in which aspects it behaves like substantive law.
So let’s begin...
Why is the Specific Relief Act considered procedural law?
This question is extremely important and is frequently asked in law exams and interviews.
> "This Act provides judicial remedies for already existing rights and does not create any new rights."
In simple terms, we can say that it ensures justice for rights that already exist and does not generate new rights of its own.
It only prescribes a legal process to enforce contractual and property-related rights. It governs specific performance, injunctions, and declaratory reliefs.
And this Act is linked to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because:
> "Its implementation takes place under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which makes it procedural in nature."
The Preamble of the Specific Relief Act also states:
> "This Act was enacted to define and amend the law relating to certain kinds of specific relief."
That means, the Act clarifies the procedure by which courts may grant specific reliefs in particular situations.
Its purpose is to define the method of enforcing rights, not to create new rights.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be concluded that the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is a procedural law, as it only lays down the process of enforcing rights and provides courts the authority to grant specific judicial remedies in specific situations.
💬 What’s your opinion on this topic?
Do share your thoughts in the comments below. 🙏
0 टिप्पणियाँ