Order (Civil) is the formal expression of any decision of a civil court that is not a decree — it encompasses all adjudications on procedural, interlocutory, or ancillary matters that do not conclusively determine the substantive rights of the parties. Under Indian law, the term is statutorily defined in Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and its distinction from a decree is critical for determining the correct avenue of appeal or revision.
Legal definition
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides a residuary definition:
Section 2(14) — Order: "'Order' means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree."
This is a negative or exclusionary definition — any formal adjudication by a civil court that does not meet the requirements of a decree under Section 2(2) is classified as an order. Orders cover a wide range of judicial decisions, including rulings on interim applications, adjournments, amendment of pleadings, discovery and inspection, appointment of commissioners, grant or refusal of temporary injunctions, and procedural directions.
The appealability of orders is restricted. Under Section 104 CPC, only orders specifically enumerated therein are appealable. Under Section 115 CPC, the High Court may exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders in cases involving jurisdiction, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegal exercise of jurisdiction.
How courts have interpreted this term
Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania [(1981) 4 SCC 8]
In this landmark five-judge bench decision, the Supreme Court drew the definitive distinction between a decree and an order. The Court held that the test is substantive, not formal: if the adjudication conclusively determines the rights of the parties with respect to matters in controversy in the suit, it is a decree; if it does not, it is an order. The Court also held that the remedy against an order — whether appeal under Section 104 or revision under Section 115 — depends on the nature of the order and whether it falls within the enumerated categories.
Midnapore Peoples' Co-operative Bank v. Chunilal Nanda [(2006) 5 SCC 399]
The Supreme Court clarified the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC (as amended in 2002). The Court held that after the 2002 amendment, revision against interlocutory orders does not lie before the High Court, and the remedy for challenging such orders is through Article 227 of the Constitution (supervisory jurisdiction). This significantly altered the landscape of challenging interlocutory orders in civil proceedings.
Sharda v. Dharmpal [(2003) 4 SCC 493]
The Supreme Court examined the nature of an order directing a party to undergo a medical examination in a matrimonial proceeding. The Court held that such an order — being an interlocutory direction that does not conclusively determine rights — is an order and not a decree, and must be challenged through the appropriate remedial provisions for orders.
Types of orders
Orders in civil proceedings can be broadly categorised:
- Interlocutory orders: Orders passed during the pendency of a suit on interim matters — such as grant or refusal of temporary injunction, appointment of receiver, discovery and inspection, or stay of proceedings.
- Procedural orders: Orders relating to the conduct of proceedings — adjournments, amendment of pleadings, consolidation of suits, transfer of suits, and case management directions.
- Final orders: Orders that finally dispose of an application or proceeding but do not constitute a decree — such as an order dismissing a suit for default (Order IX Rule 3) or an order rejecting an application for restoration.
- Conditional orders: Orders imposing conditions — such as an order requiring deposit of an amount as a condition for granting stay or injunction.
Why this matters
The classification of a judicial pronouncement as an order rather than a decree has immediate practical consequences for litigants and practitioners. The most significant consequence relates to the remedy available: a decree is appealable as of right under Section 96 CPC, but an order is appealable only if it falls within the specific categories listed in Section 104 CPC. For non-appealable orders, the remedy lies in revision under Section 115 CPC (for jurisdictional errors) or under Article 227 of the Constitution (supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court).
For litigants, misidentifying an order as a decree — or vice versa — can be costly. Filing an appeal under Section 96 against what is actually an order will result in the appeal being dismissed as not maintainable, potentially causing the limitation period for the correct remedy to expire. Similarly, filing a revision petition against what is actually a decree will be rejected, as revision does not lie against decrees.
Practitioners must also understand that interlocutory orders — particularly those granting or refusing temporary injunctions, appointing receivers, or directing interim payments — can have a decisive impact on the outcome of litigation even though they do not conclusively determine rights. A party that fails to challenge an adverse interlocutory order promptly may find its position irreversibly prejudiced by the time the final decree is passed.
After the 2002 CPC amendment, the remedy landscape for interlocutory orders became more restrictive: revision under Section 115 was curtailed, and the Supreme Court confirmed in Midnapore Peoples' Bank that Article 227 (not Section 115) is the appropriate remedy for challenging interlocutory orders.
Related terms
Distinguished concepts:
Parent concept:
Specific types of orders:
Related procedures:
Frequently asked questions
Can all civil orders be appealed?
No. Unlike a decree, which is generally appealable under Section 96 CPC, an order is appealable only if it falls within the specific categories enumerated in Section 104 CPC — such as orders granting or refusing leave to amend, orders relating to interim injunctions, and orders under Order IX (dismissal for default, setting aside dismissal). For non-appealable orders, the remedy lies in revision under Section 115 or Article 227 of the Constitution.
What is the difference between an interlocutory order and a final order?
An interlocutory order is an order passed during the pendency of a suit that does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties — such as an order granting a temporary injunction or directing discovery. A final order disposes of an application or proceeding conclusively but does not amount to a decree — such as an order dismissing a suit for default. The distinction affects the remedy available: after the 2002 CPC amendment, revision under Section 115 is generally not available against interlocutory orders.
Can an order be converted into a decree?
An order cannot be "converted" into a decree, but an adjudication may be reclassified. If a court passes what it labels an "order" but the adjudication in substance conclusively determines the rights of the parties regarding matters in controversy, the Supreme Court has held that it is a decree regardless of its label. The substance of the adjudication, not the form, determines its character.
What is the time limit for challenging a civil order?
The limitation period depends on the remedy. An appeal against an appealable order under Section 104 CPC must be filed within 30 days (Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963). A revision petition under Section 115 CPC must be filed within 90 days. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution does not have a prescribed limitation period but must be filed within a reasonable time; delay may be condoned or may result in dismissal.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.