Code of Civil Procedure 1908 MCQs for CLAT PG

Correct answer: B. Mandatory; the court must stay the later suit and has no discretion to proceed

The passage states explicitly that the stay under Section 10 is mandatory once the conditions are fulfilled, not discretionary. The word 'shall' in Section 10 (no court 'shall' proceed) is a prohibitive mandate. This was confirmed in Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Federation where the Supreme Court described the provision as mandatory, not enabling. Courts cannot decline to stay the later suit merely because they consider it inconvenient; the only way to proceed is if the conditions of Section 10 are not met.

Source note: Section 10 CPC - Res Subjudice

Correct answer: B. Section 10 applies when the relevant matter is pending in a previous suit; Section 11 applies when the matter has already been finally decided in a former suit

The passage describes Section 10 as applying where the previous suit is 'still pending' and Section 11 as applying where the matter has been 'heard and finally decided' in a former suit. This temporal distinction is fundamental: Section 10 prevents simultaneous trials, while Section 11 prevents re-litigation after a final decision. If the first suit has concluded, Section 10 is inapplicable and Section 11 governs any subsequent attempt to re-litigate.

Source note: Section 10 vs Section 11 - Temporal Distinction

Correct answer: B. It bars matters that were not raised but might and ought to have been raised in the former suit

Explanation IV to Section 11, as described in the passage, embodies constructive res judicata: matters that were not actually raised in the former suit but which 'might and ought to have been raised' are deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue. The Nawab Hussain case illustrates this: because the respondent could have raised the competence argument in the writ petition but did not, he was barred from raising it in the subsequent civil suit. This doctrine forces complete litigation at one time.

Source note: Constructive Res Judicata - Explanation IV

Correct answer: B. Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium

The passage identifies 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' as the maxim meaning the State has an interest in finality of litigation. The other two maxims have different foundations: 'nemo debet bis vexari' is grounded in private justice (protecting the individual from double vexation), and 'res judicata pro veritate accipitur' treats judicial decisions as correct. 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court shall harm no one) is not mentioned in this passage and relates to appellate powers.

Source note: Latin Maxims in Res Judicata

Correct answer: B. Proceeding to the stage of summons for judgment and passing judgment if no leave to defend is granted or if leave is refused

The passage states that in Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Federation, the Supreme Court held that in a summary suit, 'trial' begins only after leave to defend is granted. Therefore, the court may proceed up to the stage of hearing summons for judgment and passing judgment if the defendant has not applied for leave, or if leave was refused or conditions of leave were not complied with. The stay under Section 10 only kicks in at the 'trial' stage (evidentiary stage), not before it.

Source note: Section 10 - Trial Defined

Correct answer: B. All three conditions concurrently: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

The passage explicitly states that 'all three conditions must concurrently exist.' None of them individually suffices. Prima facie case establishes there is a real question to be tried; balance of convenience shows the harm from refusal exceeds harm from grant; and irreparable injury shows the harm cannot be remedied by money. The Dalpat Kaur case cited in the passage confirms that even where a disputed title question exists, the other two conditions must also be satisfied before an injunction can be granted.

Source note: Temporary Injunction - Three-fold Test

Correct answer: B. The court must endeavour to dispose of the injunction application within 30 days of granting the ex parte order, recording reasons if it cannot do so

The passage states that Rule 3A mandates that where an ex parte injunction is granted, the court must endeavour to dispose of the injunction application within 30 days, recording reasons if it cannot. This provision was inserted to prevent indefinite continuation of ex parte injunctions without hearing the opposite party. The 30-day deadline gives urgency to the final hearing on the injunction application and protects defendants from prolonged ex parte orders.

Source note: Ex Parte Injunctions - Rule 3A

Correct answer: B. Attachment of property and detention in civil prison for up to three months

The passage states that Rule 2A provides for 'attachment of property and detention in civil prison for up to three months' as consequences for disobedience of a temporary injunction. This is a self-contained mechanism within the CPC. The attachment may remain for up to one year; if disobedience continues, the attached property may be sold and compensation awarded. This is distinct from contempt of court proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Source note: Consequence of Disobedience - Rule 2A

Correct answer: B. It held that courts retain inherent power under Section 151 to grant injunctions in cases not specifically covered by Order XXXIX

The passage states that Section 151 CPC saves the court's inherent power to grant injunctions in cases not specifically covered by Order XXXIX, as held in Manohar Lal v. Seth Hira Lal (AIR 1962 SC 527). The majority in that case held that inherent power is a supplement to Order XXXIX, not a substitute for it. Courts can invoke Section 151 to fill gaps where Order XXXIX does not apply, but cannot use it merely because the conditions of Order XXXIX have not been satisfied.

Source note: Section 151 - Inherent Power and Injunctions

Correct answer: B. That existence of a disputed title question does not alone satisfy the test for injunction; all three conditions must be independently established

The passage says that in Dalpat Kaur, the Supreme Court held that 'the mere existence of a disputed question of title does not automatically justify grant of an injunction; the court must examine whether the balance of convenience and irreparable injury tests are also satisfied.' This prevents plaintiffs from obtaining injunctions simply by raising a title dispute without demonstrating the other two conditions. All three conditions are independent requirements and must each be affirmatively established.

Source note: Balance of Convenience - Dalpat Kaur

Correct answer: C. Where the former suit was decided without framing proper issues

The passage identifies three exceptions to res judicata from Raju Ram Singh: (1) former court lacked jurisdiction; (2) pure question of law; (3) fraud. The passage does not mention failure to frame proper issues as an exception to res judicata. Failure to frame proper issues may be a ground for appeal or revision but does not itself negate res judicata. The three exceptions are well-settled in jurisprudence and the passage provides the correct list.

Source note: Exceptions to Res Judicata

Correct answer: B. Where a party had an opportunity to claim all reliefs from the same transaction in an earlier proceeding but did not, a subsequent petition seeking those reliefs is not maintainable

The passage states that in C.A. Balakrishnan, the court applied Order II Rule 2 principles even to writ proceedings. The principle is that a party must claim all reliefs arising from the same cause of action or transaction in one proceeding. Splitting of claims is not permitted, and a subsequent petition for reliefs that could have been claimed earlier is barred. The passage specifically notes that all reliefs arose from the same transaction (property tax assessment), making the subsequent petition not maintainable.

Source note: Order II Rule 2 and Writ Proceedings

Correct answer: B. Competency is tested without regard to whether an appeal lay from the decision or whether an appeal was preferred

The passage states Explanation II 'clarifies that competency is tested without regard to whether an appeal lay from the decision or whether an appeal was preferred.' This means a decision of a court of limited jurisdiction (like a small cause court) can operate as res judicata even though no appeal lay from it. The test is whether the court had jurisdiction to try the matter in question, not whether a higher court could review it.

Source note: Competency of Former Court - Explanation II

Correct answer: B. Because courts can reconsider the law on pure questions of law if circumstances have changed, as the law itself may evolve

The passage states that Mathura Prasad v. Dossibhai (1970) held that 'on questions of pure law, res judicata does not apply since courts can reconsider the law.' The rationale is that legal principles evolve over time, and courts should not be frozen into incorrect legal positions merely because a previous court decided a legal question wrongly. However, res judicata does apply to findings of fact, which do not change with passage of time.

Source note: Pure Question of Law - Exception

Correct answer: B. Because a void judgment passed without jurisdiction cannot create any estoppel; jurisdiction is foundational and its absence makes the entire proceeding a nullity

The passage states that where the former court 'lacked jurisdiction to decide the issue,' it is an exception to res judicata because 'a void judgment cannot create any estoppel.' A judgment without jurisdiction is void ab initio and has no legal existence. Since res judicata requires a decision by a 'competent court' (Section 11 requirement), a decision by an incompetent court cannot satisfy this foundational requirement and therefore cannot give rise to the bar of res judicata.

Source note: Void Judgment and Res Judicata

Correct answer: C. Contempt proceedings against the judgment debtor for non-compliance

The passage lists the modes of execution under Section 51 as: delivery of property, attachment and sale, arrest and detention in civil prison, appointing a receiver, and such other manner as the relief requires. Contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are not listed as a mode of execution under Section 51 CPC; they are separate proceedings before the High Court. The modes under Section 51 are self-contained within the CPC framework.

Source note: Modes of Execution - Section 51

Correct answer: B. That res judicata applies to execution proceedings, meaning issues conclusively determined in execution cannot be re-litigated in subsequent execution proceedings

The passage states that Explanation VII to Section 11 'clarifies that res judicata applies to execution proceedings also, meaning that issues conclusively determined during execution cannot be re-litigated in subsequent execution proceedings.' This prevents parties from repeatedly agitating the same objections in successive execution applications. A question decided by the executing court (such as whether an order under Order XXI Rule 58 was correct) operates as res judicata in any subsequent application on the same point.

Source note: Res Judicata in Execution - Explanation VII

Correct answer: B. Stage one: order nisi requiring the garnishee to show cause; Stage two: absolute order if no sufficient cause is shown

The passage describes two stages of the garnishee procedure: 'an order nisi requiring the garnishee to show cause, followed by an absolute order if no sufficient cause is shown.' This mirrors the two-stage process in injunction applications (order nisi - show cause; rule absolute). The garnishee can appear and show cause why the debt should not be paid into court; if no sufficient cause is shown, the absolute order is passed and the garnishee must pay.

Source note: Garnishee Order - Two Stage Process

Correct answer: B. That the judgment debtor has the means to pay but refuses or neglects to pay, after issuing a show-cause notice

The passage states that Order XXI Rule 37 'provides that before arresting a judgment debtor, the court must issue a show-cause notice and be satisfied that the debtor has the means to pay but refuses or neglects to pay.' This two-step protection (notice + satisfaction of ability) prevents imprisonment of genuinely unable debtors. The court must actively examine whether the debtor has means; mere non-payment is not sufficient to justify arrest and detention in civil prison.

Source note: Protection Against Arrest - Order XXI Rule 37

Correct answer: B. It enables recovery through a third party who owes money to the judgment debtor, bypassing the need to trace and attach the judgment debtor's own assets

The passage explains that the garnishee order 'can direct the third party to pay the amount into court to satisfy the decree, bypassing the need to attach and sell the judgment debtor's own assets.' This is practically useful where the judgment debtor has no easily attachable assets in his own name but is owed money by third parties such as banks (in whose accounts the debtor has funds), debtors, or employers. Garnishee orders make execution more flexible and effective.

Source note: Garnishee Order - Third Party Direction

Correct answer: B. A full rehearing on both facts and law, with the first appellate court independently applying its mind to the evidence

The passage states that 'a first appeal is a full rehearing on both facts and law, and the first appellate court must independently apply its mind to the evidence.' This distinguishes first appeal from second appeal (restricted to substantial questions of law) and revision (restricted to jurisdictional errors). The first appellate court is a co-equal fact-finder and must form its own view on evidence, not merely defer to the trial court's findings.

Source note: First Appeal - Section 96 Nature

Correct answer: B. Because Section 96(3) specifically bars appeals from decrees passed by consent of parties; a party who consented cannot subsequently challenge the decree

The passage states that Section 96(3) bars appeals from decrees 'passed by consent of parties.' The rationale is that a party who consented to the decree has effectively waived his right to challenge it. A consent decree reflects the parties' agreement and has the sanctity of a contract endorsed by the court. If the consent itself was obtained by fraud or duress, the remedy would be to have the consent set aside through a separate proceeding, not by an ordinary appeal.

Source note: Consent Decree - Appealability