Code of Civil Procedure 1908 MCQs for CLAT PG, Page 2

Correct answer: B. A question of general public importance, or one with divergent judicial opinions, or one materially affecting the rights of parties

The passage states that in Chunilal V. Mehta, the Supreme Court defined a substantial question of law as 'one of general public importance, or one on which there is divergence of judicial opinion, or one that materially affects the rights of parties.' A settled question, a question of fact, or a question merely affecting one case without wider significance does not qualify. The High Court must identify and formulate the specific substantial question of law at admission and confine its decision to that question.

Source note: Substantial Question of Law - Chunilal Mehta

Correct answer: B. Exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the court, failure to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acting illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction

The passage states that Section 115 CPC is available when a court below 'has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.' These are all jurisdictional errors. Revision cannot correct mere errors of law that do not go to jurisdiction, or errors of fact, which is why it is a more limited remedy than an appeal. The passage also notes that after the 1976 amendment, revision is limited to interlocutory orders not challengeable by appeal.

Source note: Section 115 - Scope of Revision

Correct answer: B. A party who fails to appeal a preliminary decree is barred from challenging it in any appeal from the final decree

The passage states that Section 97 'provides that if a party aggrieved by a preliminary decree does not appeal it, he shall be precluded from challenging it in an appeal against the final decree.' This prevents the splitting of the litigation; a party who sits on his right to challenge the preliminary decree cannot use the final decree appeal to indirectly re-litigate the same issues. Preliminary decrees in partition, mortgage, and dissolution suits must therefore be challenged promptly after they are passed.

Source note: Section 97 - Preliminary Decree

Correct answer: B. No - the plaintiff must still lead evidence and satisfy the court of his claim even when the court proceeds ex parte; the defendant's absence does not relieve the plaintiff of his burden of proof

The passage explicitly states that even after the court proceeds ex parte under Order IX Rule 6(1)(a), the plaintiff must still lead evidence and satisfy the court. The passage says the defendant's absence does not entitle the plaintiff to an automatic decree. This is a crucial safeguard: an uncontested claim still requires some evidentiary basis. Courts cannot pass decrees merely on the basis of pleadings without any evidence simply because the defendant is absent.

Source note: Order IX Rule 6 - Burden Remains on Plaintiff

Correct answer: B. Both Order IX Rule 13 and a Section 96(2) first appeal may be pursued simultaneously; however a final adverse finding in Rule 13 proceedings on the question of non-appearance creates issue estoppel binding in the Section 96(2) appeal

The passage states: 'In Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar the Supreme Court held that both remedies may be pursued simultaneously, but a final finding in the Rule 13 proceedings against the defendant creates issue estoppel in the Section 96(2) appeal.' The simultaneous pursuit of both remedies is therefore possible, but the Rule 13 determination on the non-appearance question is binding in the appeal if it reaches finality. The Section 96(2) appeal's usefulness then shifts to challenging the merits of the plaintiff's evidence.

Source note: Bhanu Kumar Jain - Simultaneous Remedies

Correct answer: B. An undoubted right to participate in future proceedings from the point of his appearance, though he cannot reopen matters already concluded in his absence

The passage summarises the Sangram Singh principle: a defendant who appears at an adjourned hearing 'has an undoubted right to participate in future proceedings even without setting aside the ex parte order, though he cannot reopen matters already concluded in his absence.' This is the important balance: the defendant joins from where the proceedings are, not from the beginning. He cannot demand re-examination of witnesses already recorded but can participate from that point forward.

Source note: Sangram Singh - Defendant's Right After Ex Parte

Correct answer: B. That the summons was not duly served on the defendant, or that sufficient cause prevented his appearance on the date of hearing

The passage states the two grounds under Order IX Rule 13 as: showing 'that the summons was not duly served OR that sufficient cause prevented appearance.' Either ground independently supports the application. The passage does not mention merit of the defendant's defence as a ground under Rule 13 (though it may be relevant to the Section 96(2) appeal). Note that in summary suits under Order XXXVII the defendant must show both special circumstances AND a prima facie defence, which the passage distinguishes from ordinary suits.

Source note: Order IX Rule 13 - Grounds for Setting Aside Ex Parte

Correct answer: B. Codes of procedure are designed to facilitate justice and not to trip up litigants; strict rules should be interpreted so as not to exclude a litigant's right to be heard unless expressly provided

The passage quotes the Sangram Singh principle directly: 'codes of procedure are designed to facilitate justice and not to trip up litigants.' This philosophy means procedural provisions should be interpreted liberally to enable parties to present their case rather than narrowly to exclude them. The right to be heard is a fundamental principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) and procedural rules implement rather than undermine it.

Source note: Procedural Philosophy - Sangram Singh

Correct answer: B. It changed specific performance from a discretionary remedy to an ordinarily available remedy; courts shall now enforce specific performance eliminating earlier judicial discretion to refuse it

The passage states that the 2018 amendment 'fundamentally altered the character of specific performance from a discretionary remedy to an ordinarily available remedy' and that Section 10 now provides that 'courts shall enforce specific performance' eliminating 'earlier judicial discretion to refuse it.' This is a major shift from the pre-amendment position where courts could refuse specific performance on equitable grounds even if the contract was valid and enforceable.

Source note: Section 10 Post-2018 - Nature of Specific Performance

Correct answer: B. Where a contract is broken the aggrieved party may after giving 30 days written notice to the defaulting party get the contract performed by a third party or by the aggrieved party's own agency and recover the cost from the defaulting party; this is an alternative to specific performance

The passage describes Section 20 substituted performance as: the aggrieved party can 'after giving the party in default a 30-day written notice, get the contract performed by a third party or by the aggrieved party's own agency, and recover the cost and expenses so incurred from the defaulting party.' The passage also states this is 'an alternative to specific performance, not a precondition for it' - meaning the aggrieved party may choose between these remedies.

Source note: Section 20 - Substituted Performance

Correct answer: B. It prohibits courts from granting an injunction that would have the effect of impeding or delaying the progress or completion of an infrastructure project

The passage states Section 20A 'prohibit[s] courts from granting an injunction that would have the effect of impeding or delaying the progress or completion of an infrastructure project.' This provision reflects the government's priority for infrastructure development. Courts cannot exercise their normal injunction jurisdiction to halt infrastructure projects; the parties affected by such projects must seek alternative remedies such as compensation or declaratory relief rather than injunctions that would stop the project.

Source note: Section 20A - Infrastructure Projects

Correct answer: B. By specifically averring it in the plaint and continuously establishing it from the date of the contract to the date of the decree

The passage states: 'Readiness and willingness must be specifically averred in the plaint and continuously established from contract to decree.' This two-fold requirement (specific pleading in the plaint AND continuous proof throughout the proceedings) makes readiness and willingness a strict condition for specific performance. A mere assertion without proof of actual financial capacity to perform has been rejected by courts.

Source note: Section 16 - Readiness and Willingness

Correct answer: B. Contracts involving continuous duties difficult to supervise and contracts for personal service

The passage states: 'Section 14 continues to exclude contracts involving continuous duties difficult to supervise and contracts for personal service from specific performance.' These exclusions reflect the practical limitation of court supervision: courts cannot monitor day-to-day compliance with an obligation requiring continuous performance, and cannot compel a person to perform a purely personal obligation (such as acting in a film or playing in a sports team). These exclusions were retained despite the general shift to mandatory specific performance for commercial contracts.

Source note: Section 14 - Contracts Not Specifically Enforceable

Correct answer: B. The Advocate General, or with leave of the court two or more persons even though they have suffered no special damage beyond the common public nuisance

The passage states Section 91 allows a suit by 'the Advocate General, or with leave of the court, by two or more persons even though no special damage has been suffered by those persons beyond the common public nuisance.' The key feature is that private individuals need not have suffered special damage (as would be required in a private nuisance suit); the common nuisance affecting the public is sufficient. The leave requirement however ensures bona fides.

Source note: Section 91 - Who Can File

Correct answer: B. A condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction; a suit filed without the required leave is incompetent and must be dismissed; the defect cannot be waived or cured during proceedings

The passage explicitly states that the Section 92 leave requirement 'is a condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction, not merely a procedural formality' and that 'a suit filed without the required leave under Section 92 is incompetent and must be dismissed; the defect cannot be waived or cured during the proceedings.' This makes the leave requirement fundamental rather than technical: the court literally has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit without leave.

Source note: Section 92 - Leave as Condition Precedent

Correct answer: B. A judgment in a representative suit binds all persons on whose behalf it was instituted even those not individually named as parties, provided the suit was conducted bona fide

The passage states: 'Explanation VI extends the res judicata doctrine to representative suits: a judgment in such a suit binds all persons on whose behalf it was instituted, even those not individually named as parties, provided the suit was conducted bona fide.' This ensures that members of a beneficiary class cannot re-litigate issues decided in a representative suit merely because they were not personally named. The bona fide conduct requirement protects against collusive representative suits that might bind members without properly representing their interests.

Source note: Explanation VI - Res Judicata in Representative Suits

Correct answer: B. Section 91 relates to public nuisances and wrongful acts affecting the public; Section 92 relates specifically to public charitable trusts and religious endowments requiring suits for breach of trust management accounts or trustee appointment

The passage describes Section 91 as addressing 'public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public' while Section 92 addresses 'public charitable trusts and religious endowments' with suits for 'breach of trust, directions regarding management, accounts, removal of a trustee, or appointment of a new trustee.' Both require leave but serve different public interests: Section 91 protects against public wrongs generally while Section 92 protects the integrity of charitable institutions specifically.

Source note: Section 91 vs Section 92 - Distinction

Correct answer: B. To ensure that the suit is bona fide and not a device for harassment

The passage states the leave requirement in Section 91 'ensures that the suit is bona fide and not a device for harassment.' Without the leave requirement any two persons could file a suit claiming public nuisance against any entity they disliked without any genuine public interest purpose. The court examines at the leave stage whether there is a genuine public nuisance and whether the proposed plaintiffs are acting bona fide in the public interest.

Source note: Purpose of Leave Requirement in Section 91

Correct answer: B. The suit is non-maintainable; the court cannot entertain a commercial suit that has not complied with the mandatory mediation requirement

The passage states: 'Non-compliance with Section 12A makes the suit non-maintainable.' This is a severe consequence: the entire suit falls, not merely a procedural penalty. The passage further notes that the Supreme Court in Patil Automation held this requirement is mandatory. A non-maintainable suit must be dismissed, requiring the plaintiff to first attempt mediation and then re-file if mediation does not succeed.

Source note: Section 12A - Consequence of Non-Compliance

Correct answer: B. The settlement has the same effect as an arbitral award under Section 30(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; it is final and binding and can be enforced as an arbitral award

The passage states the mediation settlement 'has the same effect as an arbitral award under Section 30(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rendering it final and binding.' This is a powerful legal status: under the Arbitration Act an award is enforceable as a decree of a civil court. The settlement through mediation is therefore not merely a contractual compromise but an instrument with the full legal force of an arbitral award.

Source note: Settlement Through Pre-Institution Mediation - Legal Effect

Correct answer: B. To draw up a detailed schedule for proceedings and to complete commercial suits within one year of the first Case Management Hearing

The passage states the objective is to draw up a detailed schedule and 'to complete commercial suits within one year of the first Case Management Hearing.' This is the 'one-year disposal' goal of the Commercial Courts Act. Case Management Hearings achieve this by imposing strict time discipline on pleadings, discovery, and hearings, with cost consequences for non-compliance.

Source note: Order XV-A - Objective of Case Management

Correct answer: B. After the written statement is filed but before issues are framed

The passage states: 'Applications for summary judgment may be filed after the written statement is filed but before issues are framed.' This timing is deliberate: the written statement has been filed (so the court knows the defendant's case) but issues have not yet been framed (so a full trial has not commenced). If summary judgment is granted the need for a full trial is eliminated; if refused the case proceeds to normal trial.

Source note: Order XIII-A - When Summary Judgment Available

Correct answer: B. Where the applying party demonstrates that the other side has no real prospect of succeeding or defending, and there is no compelling reason for a trial

The passage states summary judgment may be granted where 'that party demonstrates that the other side has no real prospect of succeeding or defending, and there is no compelling reason for a trial.' The standard is 'no real prospect' not an impossible case: if there is even a genuine arguable point summary judgment should not be granted. This standard mirrors the English CPR Part 24 and balances efficiency (avoiding unnecessary trials) against fairness (ensuring genuinely arguable cases get a full hearing).

Source note: Summary Judgment - Standard for Grant