Code of Civil Procedure 1908 MCQs for Judiciary, Page 7

Correct answer: B. By the Collector in accordance with the law as to partition of such estates; the civil court passes the preliminary decree establishing the shares and the Collector then effects the actual partition of the land

Section 54 CPC provides that where a decree requires partition of an undivided estate assessed to government revenue, execution is effected by the Collector in accordance with revenue laws. The civil court determines the rights (shares) in the preliminary decree but does not itself effect the physical partition of government-assessed agricultural land; that task is assigned to the revenue/Collector machinery which has the necessary expertise and local knowledge for agricultural land division. This division of function between civil courts (determining rights) and revenue authorities (implementing partition) is a practical recognition of each body's expertise.

Source note: Section 54, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. A list of documents relied upon by the plaintiff; from the date of filing such list the plaintiff is required to produce the listed documents and cannot later add new documents without leave of court

The 2002 amendment introduced requirements designed to front-load disclosure in civil proceedings. Under the amended Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the plaintiff must file with the plaint copies of all documents in his possession or power on which he relies. A list of documents must be filed; documents not in the plaintiff's possession must be identified with the person in whose possession they are. After the plaint is filed with this list the plaintiff cannot produce additional documents without leave. This front-loading of evidence is intended to prevent the tactic of producing damaging documents belatedly at trial to prevent adequate response.

Source note: Order VII Rule 14, CPC 1908 (as amended 2002)

Correct answer: B. Is permitted with the court's permission and is deemed to be the examination of the witness in court; the rules for recording evidence apply equally.

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have approved examination of witnesses through video conferencing by reading into the existing CPC framework the technology-based proceedings. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (AIR 2003 SC 2053) held that examination of a witness through video conferencing is permissible and amounts to examination of the witness in court for purposes of the Evidence Act and CPC. The provisions of Order XVIII apply mutatis mutandis. Courts require: stable connection, verification of identity, recording of the session, and protection against coaching of the witness. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of virtual evidence recording.

Source note: Order XVIII, CPC 1908; State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai AIR 2003 SC 2053

Correct answer: B. Is not possessed of sufficient means other than the property forming the subject matter of the suit to pay the prescribed court fee for the plaint; or is entitled to sue for a relief computed at a money value exceeding Rs 1,000 but is not possessed of means to pay the court fee

Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC defines an indigent person as one not possessed of sufficient means other than the property forming the subject matter of the suit to pay the prescribed fee payable for the plaint. The court looks at the plaintiff's financial resources excluding the subject matter of the suit itself (since including the disputed property would defeat the purpose of the provision). The test is whether the plaintiff has assets outside the litigation that are sufficient to pay the court fee. The court conducts an inquiry into means and can examine the plaintiff and documents to verify the claim of indigency.

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

Correct answer: B. It is not necessary to make the beneficiaries parties to the suit; the trustee represents the beneficiaries and a decree obtained in the suit binds the beneficiaries as if they were parties, unless the court otherwise directs

Order XXXI Rule 1 CPC provides that in a suit by or against a trustee of an express trust the beneficiaries of the trust need not be joined as parties. The trustee represents the beneficiaries and any decree binds them. This is an important exception to the general rule that all persons interested in the subject matter must be parties. The exception exists because express trusts specifically appoint trustees to manage trust property and litigate on behalf of beneficiaries, and joining all beneficiaries (particularly in large public trusts) would be impractical. The court however retains discretion to direct that beneficiaries be joined in appropriate cases.

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

Correct answer: B. Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred; it must appear from the express terms of the statute or by necessary implication.

In Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1969 SC 78), the Supreme Court laid down seven principles for determining when civil court jurisdiction is impliedly barred. The key principle is that exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is not readily inferred and requires either express bar or necessary implication from the scheme of the special statute. Necessary implication arises when: the statute confers an adequate remedy; the special tribunal has all necessary powers; the scheme of the statute and the nature of the rights involved indicate legislative intent to exclude the civil court. Courts lean strongly in favour of jurisdiction: if there is doubt, the civil court has jurisdiction.

Source note: Section 9, CPC 1908; Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC 78

Correct answer: B. Order II Rule 2 bars a suit for an omitted portion of a claim arising from the same cause of action regardless of whether the first court decided the merits; Section 11 (res judicata) requires a final decision on the merits in the former suit - Order II Rule 2 can bar a fresh suit even where the first suit ended without a decision on merits (e.g., withdrawal without leave)

The distinction is fundamental. Section 11 (res judicata) requires that the matter was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and was heard and finally decided by the former court on merits. Order II Rule 2 bars a fresh suit for an omitted portion of a claim from the same cause of action even if the first suit was withdrawn (without leave) or otherwise did not result in a merits decision. Order II Rule 2 operates as a bar simply by virtue of the plaintiff having had the opportunity to claim all relief in the first suit and choosing not to. Section 11 requires an actual adjudication; Order II Rule 2 does not.

Source note: Order II Rule 2 and Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Misjoinder or non-joinder of parties; the court may at any stage order removal or addition of parties and may proceed with the suit as regards the parties before it

Order I Rule 9 CPC provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, except in a case where a person found to be a necessary party (i.e., one without whose presence no effective decree can be made) is not joined. Even then the rule is not automatic dismissal: the court can add the necessary party during the proceedings. The principle is that procedural imperfection should not defeat substantive justice. The court shall proceed with the suit as regards the parties already before it. Only a truly necessary party's absence will be fatal; a proper party's absence merely makes the decree less complete.

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

Correct answer: C. Where the subordinate court has committed an error of fact in weighing the evidence but has acted within its jurisdiction

Section 115 CPC revision is available only for jurisdictional errors: assumption of jurisdiction not vested, failure to exercise vested jurisdiction, or illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction. A mere error of fact or error in appreciation of evidence, even if significant, is not a ground for revision because it does not go to jurisdiction. If the subordinate court had jurisdiction to decide the matter the High Court cannot use Section 115 to substitute its own factual assessment. This is why errors of fact must be corrected through appeal (first or second appeal as appropriate) and not through revision.

Source note: Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Has been interpreted to mean reasons analogous to the other two grounds (new evidence and error apparent); it should be a reason of a comparable standard to those specifically enumerated, and does not include situations where a party simply produces a better argument than was made at the original hearing

The Supreme Court has construed the 'sufficient reason' ground for review restrictively. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) the Court held that 'sufficient reason' must be analogous to the discovery of new evidence or an error apparent; it is not a wide-open door to reconsider judgments. It cannot be used to introduce a new legal argument that was available at the original hearing but not raised. The ground must be of such a character that if it had been before the court at the original hearing the court would have taken a different view. Mere dissatisfaction with the judgment or availability of a better argument is not sufficient.

Source note: Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC 1908; Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000)

Correct answer: B. Confined except between sunrise and sunset, and shall not be confined on a Sunday or other general holiday; arrest cannot be effected while the debtor is going to or returning from or attending any court, nor between sunset and sunrise, nor while going to attend a religious ceremony

Section 55(3) CPC provides specific restrictions on arrest in civil execution designed to preserve the dignity of the debtor and prevent oppressive execution: (a) no arrest between sunset and sunrise; (b) no arrest on Sunday or general holidays; (c) no arrest while the debtor is attending or going to or returning from any court. These restrictions reflect the principle that civil imprisonment is a debt-collection mechanism of last resort and should not be made unnecessarily harsh or humiliating. Section 58 further limits civil imprisonment to a maximum of three months even if the decree remains unsatisfied.

Source note: Section 55, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Pay or tender the entire mortgage money due including principal, interest, and costs as a condition precedent to obtaining a decree for redemption; tender of the correct amount and readiness to pay is an essential ingredient of the cause of action in a redemption suit

In a suit for redemption of mortgage under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Order XXXIV CPC, the mortgagor must pay or tender the entire mortgage amount as a condition for getting redemption. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to redeem is conditional on payment of what is due: a mortgagor who wants to exercise the equity of redemption must satisfy the court of his readiness and willingness to pay the mortgage money. A decree for redemption includes a preliminary direction for payment and only if payment is made does the mortgagor get possession and discharge.

Source note: Order XXXIV, CPC 1908; Section 60, Transfer of Property Act 1882

Correct answer: B. Investigate the matter and adjudicate whether the resistance is bona fide or obstructive; if the resistance is found to be without just cause the court proceeds to assist the purchaser in obtaining possession; a bona fide claim to possession is adjudicated by determining the rival rights

Order XXI Rule 99 CPC (read with Rules 97-103) provides for the executing court to deal with resistance to delivery of possession to the auction purchaser. The court investigates whether the resistance is genuine (based on a legitimate claim to possession independent of the judgment debtor's interest) or merely obstructive (made on behalf of the judgment debtor or his associates to delay execution). A genuine independent claimant has his claim adjudicated; if the resistance is found to be obstructive the court assists the purchaser in obtaining possession. This prevents the auction sale from being frustrated by collusive claims.

Source note: Order XXI Rules 97-99, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Made by a document in writing signed by the appointing party (a vakalatnama or power of attorney) and filed in court; until such appointment is filed the pleader has no authority to act for that party in the proceedings

Order III Rule 4 CPC requires that the appointment of a pleader (advocate) to act or plead for a party must be by a document in writing signed by the party or by a recognised agent, and that document must be filed in court before the pleader can act. This document is commonly called a vakalatnama or memo of appearance. Until it is filed the advocate has no authority to appear and act for the party. Acts done by an advocate who has not filed the vakalatnama are acts done without authority and may be challenged. The requirement ensures there is always a written record of who has authorised representation.

Source note: Order III Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Ambassadors and Envoys of foreign States and their official suite; Governors of States while in office; and rulers of States recognised by the Central Government

Section 83 CPC provides for exemption from arrest in execution for: (a) any State in its capacity as a party; (b) Governors of States while in office; (c) members of Parliament; (d) members of State Legislatures during the sessions and 40 days before and after each session (akin to parliamentary privilege). Ambassadors and foreign sovereign immunity are governed by Section 86. These exemptions reflect various constitutional and diplomatic privileges. Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are not specifically mentioned in Section 83 though other laws protect them from certain forms of process.

Source note: Section 83, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. 90 days from the date of lodging, after which a fresh caveat must be lodged if the caveator still anticipates the application

Section 148A(4) CPC provides that a caveat shall not remain in force after the expiry of 90 days from the date on which it was lodged unless the application referred to in the caveat is made within that period. If the caveat expires without the anticipated application being filed the caveator must file a fresh caveat. The 90-day limit prevents indefinite caveats from encumbering court proceedings. The 90-day period was chosen as a balance between protecting potential caveators from being surprised by applications and not allowing caveats to lie dormant indefinitely.

Source note: Section 148A(4), Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. After the original proceedings have ended to deal with matters that have arisen subsequent to the decree, such as subsequent events that affect the decree or its execution, or to give further effect to a decree that was only partially executed

Order XLVIII CPC deals with supplemental proceedings in execution. After a decree is passed, circumstances may change: the judgment debtor may acquire new assets, or events may occur that affect the proper execution of the decree. Supplemental proceedings can be initiated to deal with matters arising after the decree that were not part of the original proceedings. This includes dealing with subsequent purchasers, dealing with assets discovered after the original attachment, or dealing with events that affect the satisfaction of the decree. They are not a re-litigation of the main suit but are ancillary to give proper effect to an existing decree.

Source note: Order XLVIII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. May by agreement restrict institution of the suit to one of several courts that would otherwise have concurrent territorial jurisdiction, provided the chosen court has both subject-matter and pecuniary jurisdiction; but parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that has no jurisdiction at all

The principle is that parties can oust one of several courts that have concurrent jurisdiction in their favour of another, by an exclusive jurisdiction clause, but they cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that has no jurisdiction to begin with. Subject-matter jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent; only territorial jurisdiction can be agreed upon by the parties. This is because territorial jurisdiction is for the parties' convenience while subject-matter and pecuniary jurisdiction are matters of public policy set by statute. The Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart v. A.P. Agencies (1989) confirmed that parties can restrict concurrent jurisdiction to a specific court.

Source note: Section 28, CPC 1908; A.B.C. Laminart v. A.P. Agencies (1989)

Correct answer: B. The appellate court shall proceed to deal with the case as if it were a new trial with the additional evidence on record, and shall either allow or dismiss the appeal or give such other orders as may be warranted

Order XLI Rule 24 CPC provides that where the appellate court has taken additional evidence under Rule 27 it shall deal with the case 'as if it were trying the case in the first instance' but with regard to findings already made. This means the appellate court re-evaluates the entire case in light of the additional evidence and makes its own finding. It can then allow or dismiss the appeal or make whatever order is warranted. The appellate court does not need to send the matter back to the trial court; it can decide the case itself having taken the additional evidence.

Source note: Order XLI Rule 24, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Fixed not less than 30 days from the date of the proclamation of sale for immovable property, and not less than 15 days for movable property; this gives adequate notice to potential bidders and the judgment debtor to raise the amount

Order XXI Rule 82 CPC provides minimum intervals between proclamation and sale: 30 days for immovable property and 15 days for movable property. These intervals serve dual purposes: first, they give potential auction purchasers adequate time to inspect the property and arrange funds; second, they give the judgment debtor time to raise the amount of the decree or to challenge the proclamation if it contains inaccuracies under Order XXI Rule 66(3). A sale conducted within the prohibited period is a material irregularity and grounds for setting aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 90.

Source note: Order XXI Rule 82, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. Deposit 25% of the purchase price immediately at the time of bidding, and pay the remaining 75% within 15 days of the sale; if the full amount is not paid within 15 days the court may set aside the sale and re-auction the property

Order XXI Rule 84 CPC requires the auction purchaser to pay 25% of the purchase price immediately when the bid is accepted, failing which the property may be re-sold. The remaining balance (75%) must be paid within 15 days. If the balance is not paid within 15 days under Rule 85 the court may set aside the sale and the deposit already paid is forfeited as penalty. This two-stage payment mechanism protects against frivolous bids while allowing the purchaser reasonable time to arrange the balance payment. Forfeiture of the 25% deposit discourages speculators from bidding without genuine intent to purchase.

Source note: Order XXI Rules 84-85, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. The execution of a decree for property in such area is excluded by any provision of law or by any rule having the force of law or by any notification of the Government

Section 45 CPC excludes execution of civil court decrees in areas where any provision of law, rule, or Government notification excludes such execution. This provision was historically important for princely states and protected areas where different laws applied. In modern India it remains relevant for areas covered by special land laws (e.g., tribal area protections under Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas, where state laws may exclude civil court jurisdiction over certain types of property). The execution must be sought through whatever alternative mechanism the applicable special law provides.

Source note: Section 45, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Correct answer: B. The court may allow the party to pay the deficiency in court fees at any stage of the proceedings; if paid within the time fixed by the court the document shall have the same force and effect as if the court fee had been paid in the first instance

Section 149 CPC provides a beneficial provision that allows correction of insufficient court fees at any stage of the proceedings. If the court fees payable on a document are less than what is required, the court may allow the deficiency to be made up at any stage. When paid the document is deemed to have been duly filed with proper court fees from the beginning. This prevents the harsh result of a suit being barred by limitation merely because a smaller court fee was initially paid; the party can correct the deficiency during the proceedings and the suit is treated as having been filed with the correct fee on the original date.

Source note: Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure 1908