Judiciary Mcqs Of The Day: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Q1. In ONGC v Utpal Kumar Basu 1994 what did the supreme court emphasize regarding the purpose of section 21
a)    To increase harassment of litigants
b)    To discourage true litigants 
c)    To protect litigants from harassment and guard their interests
d)    To expedite legal proceedings at the expense of litigant rights  

Answer – c) To protect litigants from harassment and guard their interests

Explanation:

In the case of ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994), the Supreme Court emphasized the main purpose of Section 21, is to protect litigants from unnecessary harassment and to safeguard their interests. This section addresses issues related to the objection to jurisdiction. The Supreme Court highlighted that objections regarding the jurisdiction of a court should be raised at the earliest possible stage. The intent is to avoid unnecessary delays and ensure that the proceedings are conducted efficiently, without causing undue hardship to the parties involved.

The Supreme Court underlined that litigants should not be subjected to harassment by being dragged into courts that do not have the proper jurisdiction to hear their cases.

The provision is designed to protect the interests of the litigants by ensuring that cases are heard in the appropriate forum, thereby promoting fairness and justice.

The court pointed out the necessity of raising jurisdictional objections at the earliest opportunity. This prevents parties from ambushing each other with jurisdictional issues at a later stage, which can cause delays and complicate proceedings.

By encouraging early resolution of jurisdictional questions, Section 21 helps in expediting legal proceedings and ensures that cases move forward without undue hindrance.

Q2. As a mortgagor, Ankur sues Nishu for redemption of certain property alleging that he has mortgaged it with possession to Nishu. The mortgage is not proved and the suit is dismissed. Ankur files another suit against Nishu for possession of the same property claiming to be the owner thereof the suit is not barred by
a)    Constructive res judicata 
b)    Res judicata 
c)    Both 1 and 2
d)    Neither 1 and 2 

Answer- a) Constructive res judicata

Explanation:

Constructive res judicata which is defined under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 implies that if a matter could have been raised in a previous suit but was not, then the party cannot raise it in a subsequent suit. This principle is based on the need for finality in litigation and to prevent multiple lawsuits for the same cause of action.

In the given case:

In the First Suit, Ankur sues Nishu for redemption of the property, claiming that it was mortgaged with possession to Nishu. The court dismisses the suit because the mortgage is not proved. 

In the Second Suit, Ankur files another suit against Nishu for possession of the same property, claiming to be the owner.

In the first suit, Ankur should have included the plea of ownership itself in addition to the plea of redemption if he had both grounds available. Since he did not include the ownership claim, he cannot raise it in a subsequent suit. Since Ankur could have raised the ownership issue in the first suit but did not, he is barred from raising it in the second suit by the principle of constructive res judicata.

Q3. X residing in Chandigarh publishes statements defamatory to Y in Ludhiana Y may sue X at-
a)    Chandigarh only 
b)    Ludhiana only 
c)    Anywhere in India
d)    Either in Chandigarh or in Ludhiana

Answer- d) Either in Chandigarh or in Ludhiana

Explanation:

In this case:

Defendant's Residence (Chandigarh): X, the person who published the defamatory statement, resides in Chandigarh. Under Section 20 of the CPC, Y can sue X in Chandigarh, as it is the place where the defendant resides.

The defamatory statements were published in Ludhiana, which is where the cause of action arose. This gives Y the right to sue in Ludhiana as well, based on Section 19 of the CPC (dealing with suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables).

Section 20 of the CPC, deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in suits where the subject matter is not immovable property. It states that suits shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:

As X resides in Chandigarh and the defamatory statements were published in Ludhiana, Y can sue X in either location. 

Q4. What is the minimum requirement for a foreign judgement to be considered by natural justice under section 13 (d)
a)    It must follow the exact procedure of Indian courts
b)    It must provide reasonable notice to the parties and allow them to present the case 
c)    It must involve jury trial 
d)    It must be approved by the Indian government

Answer- b) It must provide reasonable notice to the parties and allow them to present the case

Explanation:

Section 13(d) states that a foreign judgment is not conclusive if: "The proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice."

Natural justice primarily requires that the parties involved should be given reasonable notice of the proceedings and the parties must be given a fair opportunity to present their case and respond to the evidence against them. These principles ensure fairness and equity in judicial proceedings, regardless of the specific procedural rules of the court.

For a foreign judgment to be considered conclusive under Section 13(d) of the CPC, it must provide reasonable notice to the parties involved and allow them the opportunity to present their case, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. 

Q5- For section 10 of CPC to apply, what must be the relationship between the matters in the two suits? 
a)    The matters must be and totally unrelated 
b)    The matter in issues in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit 
c)    The subsequent suit must involve matters of criminal law 
d)    The matters in both suit must be administrative in nature

Answer- b) The matter in issues in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit

Explanation:

Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, deals with the doctrine of res sub judice. This doctrine is meant to prevent courts from simultaneously adjudicating two or more suits in which the matter in issue is substantially the same.

The purpose of Section 10 is to avoid multiple proceedings and conflicting decisions on the same matter in issue. This section applies when a matter directly and substantially in issue in a subsequent suit is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties.

Conditions in which Section 10 of the code can be applied, if the parties in both suits must be the same or parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title and the matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit and there must be a previously instituted suit that is pending in the same or any other competent court. 

Q6. How does section 21 contribute to judicial efficiency?
a)    By allowing unlimited objections to jurisdiction
b)    By mandating prompt objections to jurisdiction 
c)    By delaying the resolution of disputes 
d)    By disregarding jurisdictional issues altogether

Answer- b) By mandating prompt objections to jurisdiction

Explanation:

Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) mandates that objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. This requirement ensures that jurisdictional issues are addressed promptly, preventing unnecessary delays in the resolution of disputes. By promoting timely objections, Section 21 contributes significantly to judicial efficiency by allowing courts to focus on the substantive merits of cases rather than procedural disputes. 

This provision helps in streamlining court proceedings, preventing unnecessary delays, and ensuring that cases proceed smoothly without jurisdictional disputes lingering unresolved. 

Q7. Under which section of the code can a review be made against decree passed Ex parte?
a)    Section 115
b)    Section 116
c)    Section 114 
d)    Section 117

Answer- c) Section 114 

Explanation:

Under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), a review can be sought against a decree passed ex parte-

Section 114 of the CPC deals with the power of review, it allows a party to apply for a review of a decree or order passed against them in their absence (ex parte). The grounds for such a review include discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by them at the time when the decree was passed.

An ex parte decree is one passed by the court in the absence of the defendant (or respondent) due to non-appearance despite proper notice or summons. If a party believes that they have sufficient grounds to challenge the ex parte decree, they can apply for a review under this section.

Thus, section allows for the review of decrees passed ex parte, providing a recourse for parties who were not present when the decree was issued.

Q8. As per section 2 (12) of C.P.C. 1908 'mesne profit' of property are profits received by a person in-
a)    Wrongful possession of the property 
b)    Unlawful possession of the property 
c)    Effective possession of the property 
d)    Lawful possession of the profit

Answer- a) Wrongful possession of the property

Explanation: 

According to Section 2(12) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) 1908, "mesne profits" are the profits derived from property while a person is in wrongful possession of it. 

‘Mesne profits’ refer to the profits or benefits derived from the property by a person who wrongfully possesses it. This means the person is holding or using the property without lawful authority, typically after the right to possession has been lawfully terminated or when possession was never lawful to begin with. Mesne profits specifically apply to situations where someone is in wrongful possession of property and derives benefits or profits from that possession. 

Q9. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different courts is provided under which section of CPC?
a)    Section 16
b)    Section 17 
c)    Section 18
d)    Section 19

Answer- b) Section 17 

Explanation:

Section 17 of the CPC states that when immovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of different courts, any suit or proceeding concerning that property may be instituted in any court within whose local jurisdiction any portion of that property is situated.

This section ensures that a plaintiff can file a suit in any court that has jurisdiction over at least part of the immovable property in question, even if other parts of the property are situated within the jurisdiction of different courts.

Q10. An inter pleader suits is only where the real dispute is between the ____ only.
a)    Plaintiffs 
b)    Defendants 
c)    Intervenors
d)    Both 1 and 2

Answer- b) Defendants

Explanation: 

In an interpleader suit, the real dispute is between the defendants.

 An interpleader suit typically arises when a person or entity or the stakeholder holds property, such as money or goods but is uncertain about who among several claimants is entitled to it. The stakeholder initiates the interpleader suit to have the court determine the rightful owner of the property.

The defendants, are the claimants themselves who have conflicting claims to the property. They are the ones with the real dispute because they are contesting among themselves for ownership.