Legal Procedure in Nepal 2026: General, Summary & Special Process

The single most expensive mistake in early-stage Nepali litigation is filing the right case under the wrong procedure. A trademark infringement matter dropped at the District Court in regular cause-list form, when it should have been filed under the summary procedure schedule, will sit through a year of unnecessary discovery before someone notices the misallocation. A corruption complaint pursued through ordinary criminal channels, when the Special Court holds exclusive jurisdiction, gets thrown out at the first jurisdictional objection. Procedure is not a back-room concern — it determines the bench, the timeline, the appeal route and the cost.

Nepali law recognises three procedural tracks. General procedure is the default — civil and criminal cases proceed under the Muluki Civil Procedure Code 2074 and the Muluki Criminal Procedure Code 2074 through the District Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court. Summary procedure is a streamlined fast-track route under the Summary Procedures Act 2028 (1972), used for minor monetary or short-imprisonment matters and for the schedule of statutorily-listed offences. Special procedure covers exclusive-jurisdiction matters under specific statutes — corruption and money laundering under the Special Court Act 2059, banking offences under the Banking Offence Act, debt recovery under the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, and labour disputes under the Labour Act 2074.

This guide unpacks the three tracks side by side — the controlling statute, the case types, the applicable court, the timeline and the appeal path — so practitioners and clients can place a matter on the right rail at the start of the dispute. For broader court structure see our companion guide to the hierarchy of courts in Nepal; for the procedural codes themselves see the Muluki Civil and Criminal Procedure Code 2074 guide.

Alpine Law Associates — trusted by 1,000+ clients across family, corporate, civil, and criminal cases in Nepal.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Our civil practice and criminal practice handle matters across all three procedural tracks — regular District Court litigation, summary-track schedule cases at the Summary Proceedings desk, and special-jurisdiction work before the Special Court, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Foreign Employment Tribunal, Labour Court and Revenue Tribunal. The procedural diagnosis at the first consultation determines the entire case strategy: discovery scope, witness count, expected hearing dates, and the realistic budget. Clients who arrive after a misallocated filing pay twice — once for the dismissed first round and again for the corrected refiling.

What is general procedure in Nepal?

General procedure is the default rail. It applies to every civil and criminal case unless a specific statute carves the matter out and assigns it to summary or special procedure. The controlling instruments are:

• Muluki Civil Procedure Code 2074 (2017) — for civil disputes (contract, property, family, inheritance, tort, commercial)
• Muluki Criminal Procedure Code 2074 (2017) — for criminal prosecutions under the Penal Code 2074 and other criminal statutes

The court of first instance is the District Court of the place where the cause of action arose or where the defendant resides. The procedural sequence is: plaint or charge-sheet, summons, written statement or reply, framing of issues, evidence, oral argument, and judgment. Appeal lies to the High Court of the relevant province, and on a substantial question of law to the Supreme Court. There is no statutory disposal deadline at the District Court level for most general-procedure matters; the timeline is driven by the case-flow management practice of the individual bench.

For the detailed step-by-step procedure under both Codes — pleadings, evidence, judgment, execution — see our companion guide to the Muluki Civil and Criminal Procedure Code 2074.

Summary procedure under the Summary Procedures Act 2028

The Summary Procedures Act 2028 (1972) creates a streamlined route for minor matters. The trigger is in Section 3, which provides two alternative gateways:

1. Schedule 1 listed cases — irrespective of value or sentence. The Schedule lists offences and disputes under specific Acts, including the Excise Duty Act, the Nepal Factories and Workers Act, the Forests Act, the Tourism Act, the Patents-Designs-Trademarks Act, the Lottery Act, the Companies Act (specific sub-sections), the Associations Registration Act, and several others. The full Schedule should be consulted at filing because it is amended from time to time.
2. Threshold-based gateway — civil cases where the value or claimed amount does not exceed NPR 1,000, or criminal cases carrying a fine up to NPR 1,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both, other than the cases excluded in Schedule 2. The threshold is statutory and has not been revised in recent amendments; in practice it captures very minor matters.

Section 10 imposes a strict ninety-day disposal deadline on the court of first instance, counted from the date the statement of defence is filed. The compressed timeline is the policy point — the Act exists to ensure that minor matters do not occupy general-procedure court time. Procedure is affidavit-led, discovery is limited, and the bench typically resolves the matter on documents and short oral submissions.

Special procedure under the Special Court Act 2059 and tribunal Acts

Special procedure operates by exclusive-jurisdiction carve-out. Specific statutes create specific courts or tribunals and divest the ordinary courts of jurisdiction over the listed matters. The leading examples:

The Special Court itself sits in Kathmandu with nationwide jurisdiction over the prescribed offences. It is composed of three judges — one sitting or retired Supreme Court judge and two High Court judges. Cases must be decided within one year of registration. Appeal lies directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Court level. This reflects the policy that corruption, money laundering and treason are matters of national concern requiring expert benches and accelerated finality.

For specialist litigation in any of the tribunal forums, our practice has dedicated benches handling debt recovery (see our guide to the Debt Recovery Tribunal), labour matters (see our labour law guide) and writ procedure (see our writ procedure guide).

How do you know which procedure applies?

Three diagnostic questions, asked in order, settle the procedural rail in almost every case:

1. Is there a special-jurisdiction statute that carves the matter out? Read the specific Act for the subject (Prevention of Corruption Act, Money Laundering Act, Banks and Financial Institutions Recovery Act, Labour Act 2074, Foreign Employment Act, Revenue Tribunal Act). If yes, the special forum has exclusive jurisdiction and you cannot file at the District Court even if you wanted to.
2. Is the case in Summary Procedures Act 2028 Schedule 1, or below the threshold (NPR 1,000 / six months)? If yes, the matter is filed at the Summary Proceedings desk and runs on the ninety-day track.
3. Otherwise, file under general procedure at the District Court of the cause-of-action or defendant's-residence place, under the Civil Procedure Code 2074 or Criminal Procedure Code 2074 as the case may be.

The diagnostic call is mechanical but it must be done at filing, not after pleadings have been exchanged. A wrong-procedure filing is dismissed on the first jurisdictional objection and the petitioner has to refile from the start, losing time and bearing duplicate court fees.

Common procedural mistakes in practice

• Filing a Schedule 1 matter under general procedure — typical with smaller IP and excise matters where counsel does not check the Summary Procedures Act schedule before drafting
• Filing a corruption complaint at the District Court instead of through the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and onwards to the Special Court
• Filing a labour dismissal claim at the District Court when the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Act 2074
• Filing a bank loan recovery suit in the District Court when it falls within the Debt Recovery Tribunal threshold
• Missing the appeal route — appeal from the Special Court goes directly to the Supreme Court; filing in the High Court is a wasted year
• Choosing summary procedure to save time when the matter is too valuable — the threshold gateway in Section 3 caps civil claims at NPR 1,000; over-threshold matters cannot use the summary track unless they are Schedule 1 listed

Each of these errors is preventable with a procedural-rail diagnosis at the start of the case. The cost of the diagnosis is a few hours of advocate time; the cost of getting it wrong is a year of dismissed proceedings and double court fees.