Code of Civil Procedure 1908 MCQs for Judiciary, Page 5

Correct answer: B. Specific: every allegation of fact in the plaint must be specifically denied; a general denial is not a sufficient denial and every allegation not specifically denied is deemed to be admitted

Order VIII Rule 3 CPC requires that a denial in the written statement must be specific: the defendant must specifically deny each allegation of fact in the plaint. Order VIII Rule 5 provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint that is not specifically denied or not admitted in the written statement shall be deemed to be admitted. This rule prevents defendants from giving evasive or vague denials and then disputing facts at trial. A blanket denial 'the plaint is false and denied' is not a sufficient denial; the defendant must address each material allegation. The deemed admission rule makes specific denial critical for the defendant's case.

Source note: Order VIII Rules 3 and 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. The party or one of the parties or by some other person proven to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with the facts of the case; the verification must be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the pleading

Order VI Rule 15 CPC provides for verification of pleadings by the party or by some other person proven to be acquainted with the facts. The 2002 amendment added the requirement of an affidavit in support of the pleading (sub-rule 4), requiring the party to affirm that the contents of the pleading are true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. False verification of pleadings attracts liability for perjury under the Indian Penal Code. The verification must identify which paragraphs are verified as true from personal knowledge and which are verified on information and belief.

Source note: Order VI Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (as amended 2002)

Correct answer: B. Dismiss the suit for non-compliance, subject to the plaintiff's right to apply for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 if he shows sufficient cause for the failure

Order IX Rule 2 CPC provides that where the plaintiff fails to pay the court fees required for service of the summons on the defendant within the time fixed by the court, the court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed. The suit is dismissed, not stayed or adjourned. However, the plaintiff can apply for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 by showing sufficient cause for the failure to comply. The philosophy is that the plaintiff who initiates a suit must demonstrate seriousness by complying with basic procedural requirements; failure to do so justifies dismissal, but the law gives an opportunity for restoration on sufficient cause.

Source note: Order IX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Proceed with the hearing of the suit and pass an ex parte decree if the plaintiff proves his case; the defendant's non-appearance does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree but the plaintiff must still establish his claim by evidence

Order IX Rule 6(1)(a) CPC provides that where summons is duly served and the defendant does not appear, the court may proceed with the hearing ex parte. However, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to a decree merely because the defendant has not appeared. The plaintiff must still produce evidence and satisfy the court that his claim is made out. The court may not accept the plaintiff's case as proved without some evidence, even though it is ex parte. This protection prevents plaintiffs from obtaining decrees without establishing their cases merely by virtue of the defendant's non-appearance.

Source note: Order IX Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Within 30 days of the defendant having knowledge of the ex parte decree (not the date of decree if the defendant was not aware of it) under Article 123 of the Limitation Act Schedule

Article 123 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree must be made within 30 days from the date of the decree or where the summons was not duly served within 30 days of the applicant having knowledge of the decree. The date of knowledge is critical: if the defendant was unaware of the ex parte decree (e.g., service was defective) the limitation runs from when he comes to know, not from the date of the decree. The 30-day period can be extended by the court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if sufficient cause is shown.

Source note: Order IX Rule 13, CPC 1908; Article 123, Schedule to Limitation Act 1963

Correct answer: B. At or before the settlement of issues unless the document was not within the party's knowledge at that time or the court allows production at a later stage for good reason; documents not produced when required may not be received in evidence later without leave

Order XIII Rule 1 CPC provides that the parties shall produce on or before the first hearing all documents in their possession or power on which they intend to rely. Documents not produced at this stage may not be received in evidence later except by leave of court. Order XI (discovery) and Order XIII work together to ensure full disclosure of documents before trial commences, preventing ambush by documents produced at late stages. Leave to produce documents later is granted on terms, typically with costs. The regime discourages parties from withholding documents strategically.

Source note: Order XIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Afford inspection within 10 days of the order for inspection unless the documents are protected by privilege, in which case privilege must be claimed and explained

Order XI Rule 14 CPC provides for inspection of documents in the possession of a party. Upon the court's order for inspection, the possessing party must allow inspection within the time fixed (typically 10 days). Exceptions apply where documents are protected by privilege (legal professional privilege, privilege against self-incrimination, state privilege). A party claiming privilege must specifically identify the document and state the basis of the privilege claim; a blanket claim of privilege without explanation is not accepted. Inspection ensures parties have access to documents that are relevant to the case and promotes fair trial.

Source note: Order XI Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Attachment and sale of the judgment debtor's other movable or immovable property to raise the value of the specific property ordered, or by arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison, at the option of the decree holder

Order XXI Rule 32 CPC provides that where a decree for delivery of specific movable property is not complied with, the court may, on application, order execution by: (a) seizing the specific property if it can be found and delivering it; or (b) attachment of the judgment debtor's property and detention in civil prison if the specific property cannot be found. The decree holder has an option between the two execution modes. If the specific property has been alienated or cannot be found, monetary compensation through attachment of other property becomes the practical remedy.

Source note: Order XXI Rule 32, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Is liable to satisfy the decree only to the extent of the judgment debtor's estate that has come into his hands and has not been duly applied

Section 52 CPC protects legal representatives of judgment debtors by limiting their execution liability to the judgment debtor's estate that has come into their hands and that they have not duly applied (i.e., distributed properly to rightful beneficiaries). A legal representative does not become personally liable for the entire decree amount from his own pocket; his liability is strictly limited to the deceased's assets in his hands. This principle prevents injustice to heirs who inherit along with genuine assets also the deceased's debts.

Source note: Section 52, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Only the portion of the salary exceeding the first Rs 1,000 per month is attachable (up to the first Rs 1,000 is protected) and even of the attachable portion only half can be attached

Order XXI Rule 48 CPC provides for attachment of salary of a private employee. The Rule protects Rs 1,000 per month (first Rs 1,000 is absolutely exempt to ensure basic sustenance) and only half of the remainder is attachable. This limited attachment ensures the judgment debtor retains enough for basic living expenses. The protection for private employees is less generous than for government employees (who have additional protections under Rule 48) but still ensures some basic sustenance protection. The employer (garnishee) is directed to deduct the attachable amount from salary and pay it to the court.

Source note: Order XXI Rule 48, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Certifies that the person named therein has been declared purchaser at the sale of the described property on the stated date; it operates as a document of title but does not defeat prior registered encumbrances of which the auction purchaser had notice

A sale certificate under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC is issued to the auction purchaser after the sale is confirmed. It certifies the purchaser's acquisition of the property at the court sale. The certificate vests the property in the purchaser free from all encumbrances created by the judgment debtor but not from encumbrances that exist independently of him (such as prior mortgages or registered charges). The Supreme Court has held that a sale certificate for immovable property does not require registration under the Registration Act because it is a transfer by court order and Section 17(2) of the Registration Act exempts it.

Source note: Order XXI Rule 95, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. 30 days of the date of dismissal and must show sufficient cause for non-appearance; the court shall restore the appeal if satisfied with the cause shown

Order XLI Rule 19 CPC provides that where an appeal is dismissed for default of the appellant and the appellant applies for restoration within 30 days of the date of such dismissal, showing sufficient cause for his non-appearance, the court shall allow the application on such terms as it thinks fit. The 30-day period is to be counted from the date of dismissal. If the cause shown is sufficient (such as illness, natural calamity, or failure of counsel to appear without the client's knowledge), the court restores the appeal. The restoration application is analogous to an Order IX Rule 4 application in original suits.

Source note: Order XLI Rule 19, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. The court may dismiss the appeal; if the respondent also does not appear the court may proceed in the absence of both parties and hear the appeal on its merits if documents on record allow

Order XLI Rule 17 CPC provides that if on the day fixed for hearing the appellant does not appear the court may dismiss the appeal or (where the respondent also does not appear) hear the appeal in their absence if it thinks fit to do so. The court has discretion: it may either dismiss for default or proceed on merits. If it dismisses for default the appellant can apply for restoration under Rule 19. If neither party appears and the court proceeds on merits and decides the appeal it cannot be restored; the only remedy is a fresh appeal on merits.

Source note: Order XLI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. On the date of the last hearing or at a future day of which notice shall be given to the parties or their advocates; where the judgment is not pronounced on the date of the last hearing, the appellate court shall state the date on which it will be pronounced

Order XLI Rule 30 CPC provides that the judgment of the appellate court shall be pronounced on the day on which the appeal is heard or at a future day of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. It must be pronounced in open court. The requirement of notice of the date of pronouncement ensures parties can attend for the judgment. The CPC (Amendment) Act 2002 introduced a requirement that courts endeavour to pronounce the judgment at the earliest opportunity and where they cannot, reasons should be recorded. Unreasonable delay in pronouncing judgment can itself be a ground of challenge.

Source note: Order XLI Rule 30, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. A person who has not performed or is not ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract on his part which ought to be performed at the same time as the performance sought; readiness and willingness must be averred in the plaint and proved at trial

Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 (post-2018 amendment) provides that specific performance cannot be granted in favour of a person who has failed to perform or is not ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract on his part which are to be performed at the same time as the performance of the contract by the defendant. The Supreme Court has consistently held that readiness and willingness is not a one-time state but a continuous condition: the plaintiff must have been ready and willing throughout the period from the date of the contract to the date of the decree. A mere assertion of readiness without financial capacity to perform has been held insufficient.

Source note: Section 16, Specific Relief Act 1963

Correct answer: B. The plaintiff is entitled to such declaration and the defendant denies or is interested to deny the plaintiff's title or right; further consequential relief if available and sought must be claimed or the plaintiff must show reasons for not claiming it

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act provides for declaratory decrees: a court can declare the legal character or right of a person where the defendant denies or is interested in denying that character or right. The proviso to Section 34 requires that if the plaintiff is entitled to further relief based on such declaration, he must claim that further relief unless he explains why he is not doing so. A plaintiff who obtains a declaration without claiming available consequential relief may be barred from seeking that relief later under Order II Rule 2 CPC. For example a plaintiff who gets a declaration of title must also seek injunction or possession if those reliefs are available.

Source note: Section 34, Specific Relief Act 1963

Correct answer: B. Restrain a party from commission of an act which would be contrary to the plaintiff's legal right and the breach of which cannot be adequately compensated in damages, or which requires special relief, or where multiple and complicated proceedings would otherwise be necessary

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act provides that a perpetual injunction may be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the applicant where: (a) the defendant is trustee of the property for the applicant; (b) there exists no standard to ascertain actual damage caused; (c) the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief; (d) the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. A perpetual injunction is final and can be granted only at the conclusion of a suit. It differs from a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX CPC which is interim.

Source note: Section 38, Specific Relief Act 1963

Correct answer: B. A fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the continuing breach or wrong continues; the plaintiff may sue for the continuing breach even if the initial act giving rise to it occurred beyond the limitation period, but can recover only for the period within limitation

Section 22 of the Limitation Act provides that in the case of a continuing breach of contract or continuing tort a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach or tort continues. This is the doctrine of continuing wrong. For example nuisance (a continuing tort) allows the plaintiff to sue for the damage suffered within the last three years even if the nuisance commenced earlier. The plaintiff cannot recover for damage suffered beyond the limitation period but can recover for the ongoing damage. This Section prevents statutes of limitation from shielding ongoing wrongdoers indefinitely.

Source note: Section 22, Limitation Act 1963

Correct answer: B. From the date when the consequential damage resulting from the act occurs, not from the date of the act itself (since the cause of action does not accrue until damage is suffered)

Section 23 of the Limitation Act provides that for suits for compensation for an act not actionable per se without resulting damage, the period of limitation begins when the damage results and not from the date of the act. This is because the cause of action in such torts (negligence, nuisance in some cases, false imprisonment resulting in damage) is incomplete until damage occurs. The act alone without resulting damage gives no cause of action. Limitation therefore cannot run from an act that has not yet crystallised into an actionable wrong.

Source note: Section 23, Limitation Act 1963

Correct answer: B. The specified value of the commercial dispute is Rs 3 lakhs or more (as reduced by the 2018 amendment) and the dispute does not fall within the original jurisdiction of a High Court

The Commercial Courts Act 2015 (as amended in 2018) provides for Commercial Courts at the district level for commercial disputes of specified value. The 2018 amendment reduced the threshold from Rs 1 crore to Rs 3 lakhs. Commercial disputes at the High Court original jurisdiction level (for High Courts having original jurisdiction) are handled by Commercial Divisions of High Courts. For areas where High Courts do not have original civil jurisdiction the district-level Commercial Courts handle all commercial disputes of specified value. The jurisdictional determination is based on the specified value of the dispute and the subject matter falling within the definition of 'commercial dispute' in Section 2(1)(c).

Source note: Section 6, Commercial Courts Act 2015 as amended by Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act 2018

Correct answer: B. Shall be transferred to the Commercial Court or Commercial Division of the High Court as the case may be, and will be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if they were filed in the Commercial Court from the beginning

Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 provides for mandatory transfer of commercial disputes of specified value from civil courts to Commercial Courts. All such suits and applications pending before civil courts at the time of or after the Act's commencement are to be transferred to the appropriate Commercial Court or Commercial Division. After transfer they are governed by the provisions of the Act including mandatory timelines, case management hearings, and the summary judgment procedure. This mandatory transfer was intended to give the commercial courts a comprehensive caseload from the beginning rather than building it gradually through new filings.

Source note: Section 15, Commercial Courts Act 2015

Correct answer: B. The Advocate General, or with the leave of the court, two or more persons even though no special damage has been caused to those persons beyond the common public nuisance

Section 91 CPC provides that a suit for relief in respect of public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting the public can be instituted by: (a) the Advocate General; or (b) with the leave of the court, two or more persons even though no special damage beyond the common public nuisance is suffered. The leave requirement ensures that the suit is not a mere nuisance or harassment. Section 91 is the civil law equivalent of PIL in criminal proceedings; it enables public spirited individuals to take legal action against public nuisances without having to show special personal damage which would be required in a private nuisance action.

Source note: Section 91, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. The Advocate General, or with the leave of the court, two or more persons having an interest in the trust; this is a condition precedent to jurisdiction and its absence renders the suit incompetent

Section 92 CPC provides that suits relating to public charitable or religious trusts (for breach of trust, removal of trustee, appointment of new trustee, accounts, payment of property to trustee, direction for management, or for declaring what portion of trust property shall be applied) must be brought by the Advocate General or by two or more persons with an interest in the trust with leave of the court. This requirement of leave is a condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit. A suit filed without the required leave is incompetent and must be dismissed; the defect cannot be cured during the pendency of the suit.

Source note: Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure 1908