Code of Civil Procedure 1908 MCQs for Judiciary, Page 6

Correct answer: B. Also briefly address the court at this stage before any evidence is led; after the first party closes his evidence, the second party may address the court, lead evidence, and the first party has a right of reply

Order XVIII Rule 2 CPC provides for the procedural order of hearings: (1) the party with the right to begin makes an opening statement; (2) the opposing party may also make a brief statement; (3) the first party leads evidence; (4) the first party closes evidence; (5) the second party may address the court and lead evidence; (6) the first party has a right of reply on the second party's evidence and legal arguments. This structured order ensures both parties have adequate opportunity to present their cases and to respond to the other side. The right of reply is an important safeguard for the first party.

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

Correct answer: B. Conducted by affidavit unless the court for reasons to be recorded otherwise directs; the affidavit replaces oral examination-in-chief, while cross-examination and re-examination remain oral in court

The 2002 amendment to Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC introduced the requirement that examination-in-chief shall ordinarily be by affidavit. The party files an affidavit of the witness containing the evidence-in-chief. This is then read into evidence. Cross-examination and re-examination continue to be conducted orally in court. The change was intended to expedite trial proceedings by eliminating the time-consuming recording of evidence-in-chief in court. The court can order oral examination-in-chief for reasons to be recorded in writing. The affidavit of examination-in-chief is to be filed at least 15 days before the date on which the witness is to be cross-examined.

Source note: Order XVIII Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (as amended 2002)

Correct answer: B. The court may impose a fine on the decree holder for each day of default in certifying the payment; this prevents decree holders from ignoring payments and continuing execution

Order XXI Rule 2 CPC requires the decree holder to certify any payment made by the judgment debtor to the court; failure to certify may be punished by a fine. This provision prevents the mischief of a decree holder accepting payment outside court and then continuing execution as if no payment had been made. The court-mediated payment record protects the judgment debtor from double recovery. Rule 2(3) provides for the fine as a deterrent against non-compliance with the certification requirement. This is particularly important to prevent execution sale of property that has already been paid for.

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

Correct answer: B. The number of the suit, the names and descriptions of the parties, the date of the decree, whether any appeal has been preferred, whether any adjustment has been made, whether any previous execution has been made, and the mode in which the assistance of the court is required

Order XXI Rule 11 CPC prescribes the mandatory contents of an execution application: the number of the suit; names and descriptions of parties; date of decree; whether any appeal has been preferred and if so its status; any adjustments or satisfactions that have been made; whether any prior execution application has been made and if so its status; and the mode of execution being sought. These requirements ensure the executing court has complete information about the decree and any prior execution history, preventing duplicate executions and ensuring proper accounting of what remains due.

Source note: Order XXI Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Either the court that passed it or the court to which it has been transferred for execution under the provisions of the Code

Section 38 CPC provides that a decree may be executed either by the court that passed it or by the court to which it is sent for execution under Section 39. Section 39 provides that the court that passed the decree may send it to another court for execution where the judgment debtor resides, has property, or carries on business within the jurisdiction of that other court. The transferee court then has the same powers as if it had passed the decree itself. This transfer mechanism prevents inefficient execution in courts far from where the judgment debtor's assets are located.

Source note: Sections 38-39, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Yes, provided the debt was antecedent and contracted by the father for a legal and moral purpose (avyavaharika debt); the son's share of ancestral property received on partition is liable for the father's antecedent debt under the Hindu law doctrine of pious obligation

Section 53 CPC gives effect to the Hindu law doctrine of pious obligation (son's liability to pay father's debt). Where a Hindu father has contracted a debt and the sons are jointly liable under Hindu law, the creditor can execute a decree for the debt against property allotted to the son on partition, subject to the debt being an antecedent and not a tainted (avyavaharika) debt. The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act modified the pious obligation doctrine significantly for daughters, but Section 53 CPC continues to apply where the doctrine remains operative under pre-amendment Hindu law for sons in undivided families.

Source note: Section 53, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. The leave of the court; the court must examine whether the proposed settlement or withdrawal is for the benefit of the minor before granting leave.

Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC provides a crucial protection for minors in litigation: no settlement, compromise, or withdrawal of a suit by or on behalf of a minor is valid without leave of the court. The court must be satisfied that the settlement is genuinely for the benefit of the minor; a settlement that compromises valuable rights of the minor without adequate compensation will not be approved. Any settlement made without court leave is absolutely void and has no legal effect. The next friend or guardian ad litem cannot bind the minor by a compromise without this judicial oversight.

Source note: Order XXXII Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: A. Record the compromise and pass a decree in terms thereof only if it is satisfied that the compromise is not unlawful or contrary to public policy

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC provides that where the parties agree to a compromise of a suit the court shall pass a decree in accordance with the compromise if it is satisfied that the compromise is lawful and is not made for the purpose of defeating or contravening any other law. The court has a duty to examine the compromise and reject it if it is unlawful. A compromise in fraudulent deprivation of a third party's rights, or one that contravenes a statute, will not be accepted. The court's role is not a rubber-stamp but a substantive check to ensure the compromise is legally valid.

Source note: Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Notwithstanding anything else, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie in any court from the judgment and decree of such single judge

Section 100A CPC (as substituted by the CPC Amendment Act 2002) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent for a High Court or any other instrument having the force of law, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie to the High Court from that judgment and decree. This provision eliminates the intra-court appeal from single judge to division bench that existed under Letters Patent of Chartered High Courts. The provision was enacted to reduce the multiplicity of appeals and has significantly curtailed the scope of appellate jurisdiction.

Source note: Section 100A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (as substituted in 2002)

Correct answer: B. Yes - while Section 96(3) bars a regular appeal from a consent decree, the party may file a separate suit to set aside the consent decree by proving that the compromise was vitiated by fraud, coercion, undue influence, or that the party who purportedly gave consent had no authority to do so

Section 96(3) bars an ordinary appeal from a consent decree. However, this bar only prevents challenge through the appellate mechanism; it does not prevent a party from seeking to set aside the consent decree by filing a fresh suit if the compromise itself was obtained by fraud or was unauthorised. The Supreme Court has consistently held that if the compromise is shown to be a nullity (e.g., the agent who signed had no authority, or the compromise was extorted by duress), the party can file a suit for cancellation of the consent decree. This is different from attacking the merits of the decree.

Source note: Section 96(3), Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. 12 years from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse; the cause of action accrues when the defendant begins to hold possession adversely to the plaintiff

Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963 provides a 12-year period for a suit based on title for possession of immovable property, running from the date when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The concept of adverse possession is central: limitation only runs when the defendant is in hostile (adverse) possession, claiming title against the true owner. Permissive possession (as a licensee or tenant) does not start the limitation clock. Section 27 of the Limitation Act provides that at the expiry of the limitation period for a suit for possession, the title of the rightful owner is extinguished, vesting the land in the adverse possessor.

Source note: Article 65, Schedule to Limitation Act 1963; Section 27 Limitation Act 1963

Correct answer: B. 3 years from the date the breach occurs, i.e., when the obligation becomes due and the plaintiff becomes entitled to claim damages

Article 55 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963 provides a 3-year limitation period for a suit for compensation for breach of a contract, running from the date when the breach occurs. For cases not covered by specific Articles in the Schedule, Article 113 (the residuary article) also provides 3 years. The 3-year period applies from the date the cause of action arises, which for breach of contract is the date the obligation was to be performed and was not. Where a contract contains a term postponing the cause of action, limitation may be deferred, but such terms must be clearly stipulated and will not be implied.

Source note: Articles 55 and 113, Schedule to Limitation Act 1963

Correct answer: B. 3 years from the date the note becomes due and payable

Article 36 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963 provides a 3-year period for suits on promissory notes payable at a fixed date, running from the date fixed for payment. For a demand promissory note (Article 22), the period also runs from the date of the note or from the date of demand if later. Commercial paper limitations are set at 3 years to balance creditor rights with commercial certainty. Part-payment or acknowledgment within the limitation period under Sections 18-19 of the Limitation Act can extend the period from the date of acknowledgment or payment.

Source note: Article 36, Schedule to Limitation Act 1963

Correct answer: B. Issue a show-cause notice to the legal representative asking why the decree should not be executed against him, giving him an opportunity to show that the estate in his hands is not sufficient to satisfy the decree

Order XXI Rule 22 CPC provides that where a decree is to be executed against a legal representative of the deceased judgment debtor or against a person by whom the deceased was represented, the court shall issue a show-cause notice to such person before execution proceeds. This ensures the legal representative has an opportunity to show: (a) that the estate in his hands is insufficient; (b) that he has already duly applied the estate; or (c) that he was not personally liable. This protection implements Section 52 CPC (which limits execution against legal representatives to the estate in their hands) and prevents harsh execution against persons who merely stepped into the deceased's shoes.

Source note: Order XXI Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, where if separate suits were brought any common question of law or fact would arise

Order I Rule 1 CPC permits joinder of multiple plaintiffs in one suit where: (a) the right to relief arises out of the same act, transaction, or series of acts or transactions; and (b) if separate suits were brought any common question of law or fact would arise. The right to relief need not be joint; it may be several or alternative. The joinder rule promotes efficiency by consolidating related claims in one proceeding. If these conditions are not satisfied but joinder is nonetheless ordered the court can order separate trials under Order I Rule 3A. Misjoinder of plaintiffs does not by itself make the suit defective; the court can sever the claims.

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

Correct answer: B. The later-instituted suit is stayed; the stay applies to the suit which was filed subsequently, not the suit which was filed first.

Section 10 CPC provides that no court shall proceed with the 'trial of any suit' (the later suit) in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a 'previously instituted suit' (the earlier suit). It is the later suit whose trial is stayed; the earlier suit proceeds to trial and its decision determines the issue. The purpose is to give the court that was first seized of the matter the right to decide it, and prevent conflicting decisions from two courts trying the same issue simultaneously. The earlier suit is not stayed.

Source note: Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. The opposing party or the court may, if the court deems it just, require the deponent to appear for cross-examination; the court cannot deny the right of cross-examination where the opposing party desires it and there is a genuine dispute

Order XIX Rule 1 CPC allows the court to permit affidavit evidence for any fact. However Order XIX Rule 2 provides that the court may direct cross-examination of the deponent and also that any party desiring to cross-examine may apply for such cross-examination. The right to cross-examine is a facet of the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) and due process; it cannot be arbitrarily denied where facts are genuinely in dispute. Courts exercise caution in allowing affidavit evidence at final hearings for disputed questions of fact, preferring oral evidence subject to cross-examination for fair adjudication.

Source note: Order XIX Rules 1-2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Both decrees and orders capable of execution, mutatis mutandis; orders of a civil court that direct a party to do something or pay money are capable of being executed in the same manner as decrees

Section 36 CPC provides that the provisions applicable to execution of decrees shall also apply to orders of civil courts that are capable of execution. Orders requiring payment of money, delivery of property, or performance of specific acts are executable in the same way as decrees. This provision ensures that the comprehensive execution machinery of the CPC (attachment, arrest, garnishee, receiver) is available for enforcement of orders as well as decrees. The distinction between an order and a decree for execution purposes is therefore less important than the question of whether the specific adjudication contains a direction capable of being enforced.

Source note: Section 36, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Dispose of the case in accordance with the High Court's opinion; the subordinate court is bound by the High Court's opinion on the referred question of law but retains its own fact-finding function for any remaining factual questions not determined by the reference

Order XLVI Rule 6 CPC provides that after the High Court has returned the case with its opinion, the court which referred the case shall proceed to dispose of it conformably to such opinion. The subordinate court is bound by the High Court's legal determination on the referred question but it retains its function of deciding any remaining factual issues not subsumed in the reference. The reference mechanism is one of deference: the subordinate court defers to the High Court's superior legal expertise on the specific question but otherwise retains jurisdiction.

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

Correct answer: B. The ground upon which exemption from the law of limitation is claimed; failure to show grounds in the plaint does not automatically bar the suit but requires the plaintiff to establish facts at trial that bring the suit within one of the exceptions under the Limitation Act

Order VII Rule 6 CPC requires that where the suit appears to be filed after the period of limitation, the plaint must show the ground on which exemption from the law of limitation is claimed. This could be: Section 5 condonation (for appeals and applications, not suits per se), Section 6 (disability), Section 14 (prior proceedings in wrong court), Section 17 (fraud/mistake), or any other applicable exception. If the plaint fails to show grounds the court may reject it under Order VII Rule 11(d) (suit barred by any law), but courts usually give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint to state the grounds before outright rejection.

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

Correct answer: C. A residential house owned by the judgment debtor who does not reside in it but has given it on rent

Section 60(1) CPC lists properties exempt from attachment. The exemptions include: (a) necessary wearing apparel; (b) cooking vessels; (c) beds and bedding; (d) personal ornaments in accordance with religious usage; (e) tools of artisans; (f) agricultural produce in hands of agriculturists; (g) wages of labourers; (h) salary of government servants (partially); (i) pension; (j) political pension; (k) books and implements used in trade. A residential house owned by the judgment debtor but given on rent is NOT exempt: it is immovable property that can be attached and sold. The exemptions relate to items necessary for basic sustenance and livelihood, not investment properties.

Source note: Section 60(1), Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Make endeavour at the first hearing to assist the parties in arriving at a settlement and, if it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility of settlement, the court shall adjourn the case to enable the parties to reach a settlement

Order XXVII Rule 5A CPC (inserted by the 1976 amendment) imposes a positive duty on the court in suits involving the Government to make endeavour to assist parties in reaching a settlement at the first hearing. If there is a reasonable possibility of settlement the court shall adjourn to enable this. This reflects the policy that disputes involving the Government (which represents public interest) should be resolved amicably where possible rather than burdening the courts with lengthy adversarial proceedings. The provision does not compel settlement but mandates judicial effort toward it at the earliest stage.

Source note: Order XXVII Rule 5A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. No further review shall lie from an order made in review; the order on review is final and cannot be subjected to a second review before the same court

Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC explicitly provides that no further review shall lie from an order passed on review. This provision implements the principle of finality: once a court has reviewed its own order and disposed of the review application, the matter is closed before that court. The prohibition on second review prevents endless recycling of litigation at the same court level. If the review itself was wrongly decided the remedy is to challenge the review order in the appropriate appellate forum, not to file another review before the same court.

Source note: Order XLVII Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908