Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Test 2 — Questions & Solutions
Every question from this subject test with the correct answer and a detailed, source-backed solution. Free to read. Want the real exam feel — a timer, instant scoring, and a topic-wise weakness report? Take it as a test.
50
Questions
8
Topics
+ solutions
Every question
Take this as a timed mock test — instant score + subject-wise analytics. First mock free, then ₹999/year for unlimited.
Q1Jurisdiction, res judicata & res sub judice (S9–14, 21)
Section 12 of the CPC provides a bar of further suit. It states that where a plaintiff is precluded by rules from instituting a further suit in respect of any particular cause of action, he shall:
aNot be entitled to institute a suit in respect of such cause of action in any court
bBe entitled to institute a fresh suit only with the leave of the court
cBe entitled to institute the suit only in a court of higher pecuniary jurisdiction
dBe barred only from claiming the relief he had earlier abandoned
Answer: A
Section 12 provides that where a plaintiff is precluded by rules (e.g., Order II Rule 2, Order IX Rule 9, Order XXIII Rule 1) from instituting a further suit on a particular cause of action, he is barred from instituting a suit in respect of that cause of action in any court.
Q2Jurisdiction, res judicata & res sub judice (S9–14, 21)
Section 13 of the CPC declares that a foreign judgment is conclusive between the parties, subject to exceptions. Which of the following is NOT one of the grounds under Section 13 on which a foreign judgment ceases to be conclusive?
aWhere it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction
bWhere the unsuccessful party has not appealed against it within the limitation period prescribed in the foreign country
cWhere it has been obtained by fraud
dWhere it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India
Answer: B
Section 13 lists six exceptions (clauses a–f), including lack of competent jurisdiction, fraud, and a claim founded on a breach of Indian law; failure to appeal abroad within limitation is not a ground rendering a foreign judgment inconclusive.
Q3Jurisdiction, res judicata & res sub judice (S9–14, 21)
Under Section 13(b) of the CPC, a foreign judgment is not conclusive where it has not been given on the merits of the case. In which decision did the Supreme Court elaborate the principles governing conclusiveness of foreign judgments, including the meaning of 'on merits' and competent jurisdiction in matrimonial matters?
aY. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi
bSatya v. Teja Singh
cBoth (a) and (b)
dNeither (a) nor (b)
Answer: C
Both Satya v. Teja Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 120, and Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451, dealt with the conclusiveness/competence of foreign matrimonial judgments under Section 13, holding such judgments must be on merits and by a court of competent jurisdiction recognised by Indian law.
Q4Jurisdiction, res judicata & res sub judice (S9–14, 21)
Section 14 of the CPC raises a presumption regarding foreign judgments. On production of a certified copy of a foreign judgment, the court shall presume that:
aThe judgment was given on the merits of the case
bThe judgment was not obtained by fraud
cThe judgment is conclusive between the parties for all purposes
dThe judgment was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record or is proved
Answer: D
Section 14 directs the court, upon production of a certified copy of a foreign judgment, to presume that it was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record or is proved otherwise.
Q5Jurisdiction, res judicata & res sub judice (S9–14, 21)
Section 21 of the CPC deals with objections to jurisdiction. An objection as to the place of suing (territorial jurisdiction) will be allowed by an appellate or revisional court only if which of the following conditions are satisfied?
aThe objection was taken in the court of first instance, at the earliest possible opportunity, and there has been a consequent failure of justice
bThe objection relates to pecuniary jurisdiction and was raised in the appellate court for the first time
cThe objection goes to the inherent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court
dThe defendant raised the objection at any stage before the final decree, regardless of prejudice
Answer: A
Under Section 21(1), a territorial jurisdiction objection is entertained by an appellate/revisional court only if it was raised in the court of first instance at the earliest opportunity and there has been a consequent failure of justice (Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340).
Q6Jurisdiction, res judicata & res sub judice (S9–14, 21)
In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1954 SC 340), the Supreme Court drew a distinction between a defect of subject-matter jurisdiction and a defect of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction. Which proposition correctly reflects the ruling?
aA defect of pecuniary jurisdiction renders the decree void ab initio in all circumstances
bA decree passed by a court lacking subject-matter (inherent) jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity can be set up at any stage
cA territorial jurisdiction defect makes the decree a nullity even without prejudice
dAn objection to subject-matter jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity or it is waived
Answer: B
Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan held that a decree by a court without inherent (subject-matter) jurisdiction is a nullity assailable at any stage, whereas defects of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction are curable under Section 21 absent a failure of justice.
Q7Jurisdiction, res judicata & res sub judice (S9–14, 21)
Section 21A of the CPC, inserted by the 1976 amendment, bars a particular kind of suit. It provides that no suit shall lie to:
aSet aside a decree passed in a suit by a court not having pecuniary jurisdiction
bRecover costs incurred in a suit dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction
cChallenge the validity of a decree on the ground of an objection as to the place of suing
dRestrain parties from instituting proceedings in a foreign court
Answer: C
Section 21A bars a substantive suit to set aside a decree passed in a former suit on any ground based on an objection as to the place of suing, reinforcing the curative scheme of Section 21.
Q8Institution of suits, parties, frame of suit, pleadings (O1–O8)
Under Order VI Rule 4 CPC, when a party pleads misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence, the rule requires that:
aA bare allegation of fraud is sufficient and particulars may be furnished at the stage of evidence
bSuch allegations need not be pleaded at all and may be proved by surprise at trial
cThe allegation must be supported by an affidavit of a handwriting expert
dParticulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading
Answer: D
Order VI Rule 4 mandates that in cases of misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence, particulars (with dates and items where necessary) must be stated in the pleading; a vague general allegation is impermissible.
Q9Institution of suits, parties, frame of suit, pleadings (O1–O8)
Regarding amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (as amended in 2002), which statement is correct?
aAfter the trial has commenced, no application for amendment shall be allowed unless the court concludes that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial
bAmendment can be allowed freely at any stage with no restriction even after trial begins
cAmendment of pleadings is wholly prohibited once issues have been framed
dAmendment may be allowed only by the appellate court and not by the trial court
Answer: A
The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 (inserted in 2002) bars amendment after commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier.
Q10Institution of suits, parties, frame of suit, pleadings (O1–O8)
Under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC, an allegation of fact in the plaint which is not denied specifically or by necessary implication in the written statement is:
aAlways treated as denied and must be strictly proved by the plaintiff
bTaken to be admitted, except as against a person under disability, though the court may still require proof
cRequired to be put to a fresh round of pleadings before any inference is drawn
dDeemed irrelevant and struck off from the record
Answer: B
Order VIII Rule 5(1) provides that a fact not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted, shall be taken to be admitted (except against persons under disability); the court may nonetheless require proof of an admitted fact under the proviso.
Q11Institution of suits, parties, frame of suit, pleadings (O1–O8)
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, after the 2002 amendment, prescribes the time for filing a written statement. The defendant shall, ordinarily, present the written statement within:
aSixty days from the institution of the suit with no possibility of extension
bFifteen days from the framing of issues
cThirty days from the date of service of summons, extendable to ninety days for recorded reasons
dOne hundred and twenty days mandatorily, after which the right is forfeited in every suit
Answer: C
Order VIII Rule 1 (2002 amendment) requires the written statement within 30 days of service of summons; the proviso permits the court, for reasons recorded, to extend this up to 90 days. (The 120-day outer limit applies to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, not the general CPC rule.)
Q12Institution of suits, parties, frame of suit, pleadings (O1–O8)
A set-off pleaded by a defendant under Order VIII Rule 6 CPC (legal set-off) must satisfy which requirement?
aIt may be for any amount, whether or not ascertained, and need not be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court
bIt is available only in suits for recovery of immovable property
cIt can be raised for the first time in the appellate court without pleading
dIt must be for an ascertained sum of money legally recoverable and within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court
Answer: D
Legal set-off under Order VIII Rule 6 requires an ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by the defendant, not exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, in a suit for recovery of money.
Q13Institution of suits, parties, frame of suit, pleadings (O1–O8)
A claim of equitable set-off, as recognised in CPC jurisprudence, differs from a legal set-off under Order VIII Rule 6 chiefly because an equitable set-off:
aIs permitted for an unascertained sum of money where the cross-demands arise out of the same transaction or are so connected that justice requires them to be taken together
bMust always be for an ascertained sum of money
cCan only be claimed by the plaintiff and never by the defendant
dRequires the leave of the court and payment of separate court fee in every case
Answer: A
Equitable set-off (a judge-made principle distinct from the statutory legal set-off in Order VIII Rule 6) allows even unascertained cross-claims where they arise out of the same transaction or are so connected that it would be inequitable to drive the defendant to a separate suit.
Q14Institution of suits, parties, frame of suit, pleadings (O1–O8)
Section 26 read with Order IV Rule 1 CPC governs the institution of a suit. A suit is instituted when:
aThe summons is served on the defendant
bA plaint is presented to the court or such officer as it appoints, and the particulars are entered in the register of civil suits
cThe first hearing is fixed by the court
dIssues are framed by the court after the written statement is filed
Answer: B
Section 26 provides that every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint, and Order IV Rule 1 requires the plaint to be presented to the court (or appointed officer) and its particulars entered in the register of civil suits; the suit is duly instituted only when these requirements are met.
Q15Institution of suits, parties, frame of suit, pleadings (O1–O8)
A decree is passed in a suit in which a necessary party has not been joined. As regards the maintainability of the suit, which statement is most accurate under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC?
aNo suit can ever be defeated by reason of non-joinder of any party, whether necessary or proper
bA suit is automatically void if any proper party is left out, even though a necessary party is present
cA suit shall not be defeated by misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, but the general rule does not protect against non-joinder of a necessary party
dThe court must dismiss the suit for any defect of parties without granting an opportunity to amend
Answer: C
Order 1 Rule 9 says no suit shall be defeated by misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, but its proviso expressly excludes the non-joinder of a necessary party, in whose absence no effective decree can be passed.
A decree-holder applies to the court that passed the money decree to attach property of the judgment-debtor situated within the jurisdiction of another competent court, even though the decree has not yet been transferred there. The appropriate mechanism, and its key limitation, is:
aA transfer under Section 39; attachment continues indefinitely
bA garnishee order under Order 21 Rule 46A; attachment lapses in 15 days
cAn attachment before judgment under Order 38; attachment continues until satisfaction
dA precept under Section 46; the attachment shall not continue for more than two months unless extended or the decree is transferred and sale applied for
Answer: D
Section 46 CPC empowers the court that passed the decree to issue a precept to another competent court to attach the judgment-debtor's property; under the proviso, the attachment shall not continue for more than two months unless extended or the decree is transferred and sale applied for.
A judgment-debtor dies after the decree is passed but before satisfaction. The decree-holder executes the money decree against the legal representative. To what extent is the legal representative liable under Section 50 CPC?
aLiable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of
bPersonally liable for the entire decretal amount irrespective of the estate received
cNot liable at all, since the decree abates on the debtor's death
dLiable for half the decretal amount in every case
Answer: A
Under Section 50(2) CPC, where a decree is executed against a legal representative, he is liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of.
In an execution sale of immovable property, on whom does Order 21 Rule 84 CPC cast the obligation to make an immediate deposit, and of what amount, when the bid is accepted?
aThe decree-holder must deposit 5 per cent immediately
bThe purchaser must deposit 25 per cent of the purchase-money immediately on being declared the highest bidder
cThe purchaser must deposit the full purchase-money within 30 days
dThe judgment-debtor must deposit 25 per cent to avert the sale
Answer: B
Under Order 21 Rule 84(1) CPC, on every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser must immediately deposit 25 per cent of the purchase-money, failing which the property is resold (the balance is payable within 15 days under Rule 85).
The successful auction-purchaser of immovable property fails to pay the balance of the purchase-money within the prescribed period after the deposit of 25 per cent. Under Order 21 Rule 86 CPC, the consequence is that:
aThe purchaser gets an automatic extension of 30 days
bThe sale is confirmed and the balance becomes a decree against the purchaser
cThe property shall be resold and the deposit, after defraying resale expenses, may be forfeited to the Government
dThe decree-holder must make good the shortfall
Answer: C
Under Order 21 Rule 85 the balance must be paid within 15 days; on default, Rule 86 provides that the property shall be resold and the deposit (after defraying resale expenses) may be forfeited to the Government.
A stranger to the decree claims that the property attached in execution belongs to him and not to the judgment-debtor, and files an objection. Which provision governs the adjudication of such a claim or objection to attachment, and what is the resulting order's status?
aSection 47; the order is treated as a decree appealable as such
bOrder 21 Rule 35; the claimant must file a separate title suit within one year
cOrder 1 Rule 10; the claimant is merely added as a party
dOrder 21 Rule 58; the order made on the claim/objection has the same force as a decree and is subject to appeal, not a separate suit
Answer: D
Order 21 Rule 58 CPC governs adjudication of claims and objections to attachment by the executing court; under Rule 58(4)-(5) such an order has the same force as, and is subject to the same conditions as to appeal as, a decree, and a separate suit is barred.
A question arises in execution as to whether the decree has been fully satisfied by an out-of-court payment made by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. The proper forum and procedure to determine this question is:
aDetermination by the executing court itself under Section 47, all questions relating to satisfaction or discharge of the decree being decided in execution and not by separate suit
bA fresh, separate suit for declaration of satisfaction
cA reference to the High Court under Section 113
dAn application for review under Order 47 before the court that passed the decree
Answer: A
Under Section 47 CPC, all questions arising between the parties to the suit (or their representatives) relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree are to be determined by the executing court and not by a separate suit (Ghan Shyam Das Gupta v. Anant Kumar Sinha, (1991) 4 SCC 379).
Two or more decree-holders hold separate money decrees against the same judgment-debtor and apply to the same court for execution against the same property; the assets realised are insufficient to satisfy all the decrees in full. In the absence of any priority or charge, how are the assets to be distributed under Section 73 CPC?
aOn a 'first in time' basis, the earliest decree being satisfied first
bRateably among all such decree-holders who had applied for execution before the receipt of the assets, after deducting costs of realisation
cEntirely to the decree-holder who first attached the property
dEqually in fixed shares regardless of the size of each decree
Answer: B
Section 73(1) CPC provides for rateable distribution of assets among decree-holders who, prior to the receipt of the assets, had applied to the same court for execution of their money decrees against the same judgment-debtor and had not obtained satisfaction, after deducting costs of realisation.
A money decree is passed by a court in Delhi against a judgment-debtor who owns immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of a court in Mumbai. The decree-holder wishes to execute the decree against that property. Which course is correct under the CPC?
aThe Delhi court itself can attach and sell the Mumbai property as if it were within its own jurisdiction
bThe decree-holder must file a fresh suit in Mumbai on the basis of the decree
cThe Delhi court must transfer the decree to the Mumbai court for execution against the property
dExecution can only be sought in the court of the place where the cause of action arose
Answer: C
Under Section 39 read with Order 21 Rules 3 and 4, where property is outside the local limits of the court that passed the decree, the decree may be sent for execution to the court within whose jurisdiction the immovable property lies.
Under Section 96 read with Section 99 of the CPC, when may an appellate court reverse or substantially vary a decree on account of a misjoinder or non-joinder of parties or a defect not affecting the merits?
aWhenever any irregularity in the proceedings is shown
bNever, since procedural defects are always fatal
cOnly where the opposite party consents to reversal
dOnly where such error, defect or irregularity affects the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court
Answer: D
Section 99 provides that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied for misjoinder/non-joinder (other than non-joinder of a necessary party) or for any error/irregularity not affecting the merits or the jurisdiction of the court.
An appellate court hearing a first appeal wishes to record additional evidence. Under Order XLI Rule 27, additional evidence may be admitted in which of the following situations?
aWhere the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause
bWhenever a party simply asks to lead more evidence on appeal
cOnly where both parties consent to fresh evidence being led
dOnly where the additional evidence relates to a question of jurisdiction
Answer: A
Order XLI Rule 27(1) permits additional evidence in appeal where the lower court wrongly refused admissible evidence, where the party shows it could not produce it despite due diligence, or where the appellate court itself requires it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
A subordinate court, while trying a suit, doubts the validity of an Act on the ground that it is ultra vires and considers it necessary to obtain the High Court's opinion. Which provision of the CPC enables this?
aSection 114 – Review
bSection 113 – Reference to the High Court
cSection 115 – Revision
dSection 96 – Appeal from original decree
Answer: B
Section 113, with its proviso, allows a court to state a case and refer it for the opinion of the High Court where it doubts the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation; the procedure is detailed in Order XLVI.
Which of the following is NOT one of the grounds on which a review of a judgment may be sought under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC?
aDiscovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced earlier
bSome mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
cThat the judgment is contrary to the weight of evidence and the applicant disagrees with the court's appreciation of facts
dAny other sufficient reason
Answer: C
Order XLVII Rule 1 confines review to (i) discovery of new and important evidence, (ii) an error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) any other sufficient reason; mere disagreement with the appreciation of evidence is not a ground, as a review is not an appeal in disguise.
Under Section 114 of the CPC, an application for review may be made by a person who considers himself aggrieved by which of the following?
aOnly by a decree from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred
bOnly by a decree from which no appeal is allowed
cOnly by an order made in execution proceedings
dBy a decree/order from which an appeal is allowed but none preferred, by a decree/order from which no appeal is allowed, or by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes
Answer: D
Section 114 permits review by a person aggrieved by (a) a decree/order appealable but not appealed from, (b) a decree/order from which no appeal is allowed, and (c) a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC may be exercised in respect of a case decided by a subordinate court only where the subordinate court appears to have:
aExercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction
bCommitted any error of law or fact in the decision
cReached a conclusion against the weight of evidence
dDecided a substantial question of law erroneously
Answer: A
Section 115(1) limits revision to jurisdictional errors: where the subordinate court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction.
After the 1999/2002 amendments, the proviso to Section 115(1) restricts when the High Court may vary or reverse an order made in the course of a suit. The High Court may interfere only if the order, had it been made in favour of the applying party, would have:
aSaved costs to the parties
bFinally disposed of the suit or other proceeding
cAvoided delay in the trial
dRequired the recording of additional evidence
Answer: B
The proviso to Section 115(1) bars revision of an interlocutory order unless the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.
Interrogatories delivered for the examination of an opposite party under Order 11 CPC may be set aside or struck out on which of the following grounds?
aOnly that they relate to documents and not facts
bOnly that the party serving them is the defendant
cThat they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous
dThat they exceed ten in number in every case
Answer: C
Order 11 Rule 7 CPC empowers the court to set aside interrogatories exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, and Rule 6 allows striking out those that are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous.
A plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the court to answer interrogatories and to give discovery of documents. Under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC, the court may:
aOnly impose a fine on the plaintiff
bStrike out the plaint and permit immediate re-filing
cPass a decree in favour of the plaintiff to expedite the matter
dDismiss the suit for want of prosecution, after which a fresh suit on the same cause of action is precluded
Answer: D
Under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC, a defaulting plaintiff is liable to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and once so dismissed he is precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
At the first hearing of a suit, the object of the court's examination of the parties under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC is primarily to:
aAscertain from each party whether he admits or denies the allegations of fact made in the pleadings of the other party
bRecord the entire evidence of the parties
cRefer every dispute to arbitration
dCompel the parties to file additional documents on oath
Answer: A
Order 10 Rule 1 CPC directs the court at the first hearing to ascertain from each party whether he admits or denies the allegations of fact made in the plaint or written statement of the other party that are not expressly admitted or denied.
aBoth parties agree on every material proposition of fact and law
bA material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other
cThe plaint discloses no cause of action
dThe court has recorded the evidence of all witnesses
Answer: B
Order 14 Rule 1(1) CPC provides that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other; each material proposition so in dispute forms the subject of a distinct issue.
The court is satisfied that a suit can be disposed of on a preliminary issue of law relating to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar created by a law in force. Under Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC, the court may:
aRefer all issues to a commissioner
bDecide all issues of fact before deciding any issue of law
cTry that issue first as a preliminary issue and postpone settlement of the other issues
dFrame no issues at all and dismiss the suit summarily
Answer: C
Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC permits the court to try an issue relating to jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by any law in force as a preliminary issue and postpone the settlement of other issues until that issue is determined.
Under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, as amended, the court's power to grant adjournments during the hearing of a suit is subject to which of the following limitations?
aNo adjournment may ever be granted once trial begins
bAdjournments may be granted at the court's unfettered discretion without limit
cAdjournments are limited to five per party with costs
dNo such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of the suit
Answer: D
The proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(1) CPC (inserted by the 2002 amendment) provides that no adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of the suit.
Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC, inserted by the 1976 amendment, prescribes a time-frame relating to applications for temporary injunction granted ex parte. What does it require?
aWhere an injunction is granted without notice, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date of grant
bThe ex parte injunction automatically lapses after fifteen days
cThe opposite party must be served within forty-eight hours
dThe applicant must file the suit itself within seven days
Answer: A
Order XXXIX Rule 3A directs that where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted, and record reasons if it cannot.
If a person against whom a temporary injunction has been granted under Order XXXIX disobeys or breaches the injunction, what consequences does Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC authorise?
aOnly a fine not exceeding the suit value, with no power of detention
bAttachment of the disobeying party's property and, in case of continued disobedience, detention in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months
cImmediate dismissal of the suit or defence as the case may be
dReference of the matter to the High Court for contempt proceedings only
Answer: B
Order XXXIX Rule 2A empowers the court, on breach of an injunction, to order attachment of the disobedient party's property (attachment not to remain in force more than one year, after which property may be sold) and to detain the person in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months.
The well-established triad of considerations governing the grant of a temporary injunction — prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury — was authoritatively reiterated by the Supreme Court in which decision?
aRaman Tech & Process Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302
bT. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467
cDalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719
dCotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank, (1983) 4 SCC 625
Answer: C
In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719, the Supreme Court explained the three conditions for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 — prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Raman Tech concerns attachment before judgment.
Under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, a court may appoint a receiver of any property where it appears 'just and convenient'. Which of the following correctly states a limitation on the receiver's powers as enumerated in Rule 1?
aA receiver can never be authorised to bring or defend suits
bThe court may remove a person in possession only if that person has no right to possession
cA receiver may be appointed only after the final decree is passed
dNothing in Rule 1 shall authorise the court to remove from possession a person whom any party has no present right to remove
Answer: D
Order XL Rule 1(2) expressly provides that nothing in the rule authorises the court to remove from possession or custody any person whom any party to the suit has not a present right so to remove. The receiver may, under Rule 1(1)(d), be empowered to bring and defend suits.
Where a receiver appointed under Order XL fails to submit accounts or causes loss to the property by his wilful default or gross negligence, Order XL Rule 4 CPC empowers the court to take which action?
aDirect his property to be attached and sold, and apply the proceeds to make good any amount found due or loss occasioned
bOnly report the receiver to the Bar Council for misconduct
cConvict him of contempt and sentence him to imprisonment up to six months
dRefer the matter to the police for criminal breach of trust as the sole remedy
Answer: A
Order XL Rule 4 provides that where a receiver fails to submit accounts, pay the amount due, or occasions loss to the property by wilful default or gross negligence, the court may direct his property to be attached and sold and apply the proceeds to make good the amount due or the loss occasioned.
A plaintiff seeks a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from instituting a proposed suit before another forum. Considering the scheme of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act read with the principles affirmed in Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank, (1983) 4 SCC 625, such an injunction is:
aFreely grantable as part of the court's inherent powers
bNot grantable, since a court cannot grant an injunction to restrain a person from instituting proceedings in a court not subordinate to it
cGrantable only if the proposed suit is in a foreign court
dGrantable only with the consent of the Advocate-General
Answer: B
In Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank, (1983) 4 SCC 625, the Supreme Court held that a temporary injunction cannot be granted to restrain a party from instituting proceedings in a court not subordinate to the granting court, consistent with Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Regarding pendente lite interest (from the date of the suit to the date of the decree) under Section 34 CPC, which statement is most accurate?
aIt must always be awarded at six per cent per annum
bIt can only be awarded if the contract stipulates a rate
cIt is awardable at such rate as the Court deems reasonable and is not capped at six per cent per annum
dIt is mandatory and cannot be refused by the Court
Answer: C
Under Section 34(1), interest for the period from the date of the suit to the date of the decree is awarded at 'such rate as the Court deems reasonable'; the 6% ceiling applies only to post-decree further interest, not to pendente lite interest.
Section 34 CPC empowers the Court to award interest on the 'principal sum adjudged'. In which type of decree does this power to award interest under Section 34 operate?
aOnly in decrees for possession of immovable property
bOnly in decrees for specific performance of contracts
cIn all decrees, including declaratory and injunction decrees
dIn decrees for the payment of money
Answer: D
Section 34 applies where the decree is for the payment of money — it authorises interest on the 'principal sum adjudged', a concept inapplicable to non-monetary decrees such as injunctions or declarations.
In Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (2001/2002), the Supreme Court was concerned principally with the interpretation of which expression in Section 34 CPC?
a'The principal sum adjudged', particularly whether it can include capitalised interest
b'Commercial transaction' in the proviso to sub-section (1)
c'Such rate as the Court deems reasonable'
d'Date of the decree' for computing post-decree interest
Answer: A
In Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of 'the principal sum adjudged' in Section 34, particularly the question of capitalisation of interest in banking recovery suits.
Under Section 35 CPC, the costs of and incident to all suits are:
aMandatorily to be borne equally by both parties regardless of outcome
bIn the discretion of the Court, which has full power to determine by whom and to what extent they are to be paid
cAlways payable by the State where a public authority is a party
dFixed by a statutory schedule with no judicial discretion
Answer: B
Section 35(1) vests the matter of costs in the discretion of the Court, which has full power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid.
Q47Suits in special cases & summary suits (O1 R8, interpleader, O37)
An interpleader suit under Section 88 CPC can be instituted where:
aA single creditor claims money from two debtors
bThe plaintiff himself claims an interest in the property in addition to charges and costs
cTwo or more persons claim adversely to one another the same debt, sum of money or other property from a person who claims no interest other than charges or costs
dMultiple persons jointly claim property and the holder disputes their title
Answer: C
Section 88 CPC allows an interpleader suit where two or more persons claim adversely to one another the same debt, sum of money or other property, movable or immovable, from another person who claims no interest therein other than charges or costs and is ready to deliver it to the rightful claimant.
Q48Suits in special cases & summary suits (O1 R8, interpleader, O37)
Under Order 35 Rule 1 CPC, the plaint in an interpleader suit must, in addition to ordinary requirements, state which of the following?
aThat the plaintiff has a beneficial interest in the subject-matter
bThat the plaintiff is willing to pay damages to the unsuccessful defendant
cThat the plaintiff has obtained the consent of all claimants
dThat the plaintiff claims no interest in the subject-matter other than for charges or costs, and that there is no collusion between him and any of the defendants
Answer: D
Order 35 Rule 1 requires the plaint in an interpleader suit to state, besides ordinary particulars, that the plaintiff claims no interest in the subject-matter other than for charges or costs; that the claims have been made by the defendants severally; and that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and any of the defendants.
Q49Suits in special cases & summary suits (O1 R8, interpleader, O37)
Which category of persons is barred from maintaining an interpleader suit under the Code?
aAn agent against his principal, or a tenant against his landlord, for the purpose of compelling them to interplead with persons other than persons claiming through such principal or landlord
bA trustee against beneficiaries
cA stakeholder of disputed prize money
dA bank holding disputed deposits
Answer: A
The proviso to Section 88 CPC bars an interpleader suit where any suit is pending in which the rights of all parties can properly be decided; and Order 35 Rule 5 specifically bars an agent from suing his principal, or a tenant his landlord, to compel them to interplead with persons claiming otherwise than through such principal or landlord.
Q50Suits in special cases & summary suits (O1 R8, interpleader, O37)
At the first hearing of an interpleader suit, under Order 35 Rule 4 CPC, the court may:
aOnly dismiss the suit if claimants disagree
bDeclare that the plaintiff is discharged from all liability, award him costs, and dismiss him from the suit, retaining the contesting claimants
cRefer the entire dispute to arbitration without consent
dDirect the plaintiff to retain the property until appeal is decided
Answer: B
Order 35 Rule 4(1)(a) empowers the court at the first hearing, where the plaintiff admits no interest other than charges or costs, to declare him discharged from all liability, award him costs, and dismiss him from the suit; the suit then continues between the rival claimants.
Law Mock is an independent preparation resource and is not affiliated with any High Court, Public Service Commission, or government body. All exam information is sourced from official notifications and is updated periodically.
