HP Judicial Services (Prelims) Mock - 3 (Civil Law - I) - Judiciary Exams MCQ

Order 33, Rule 1 of CPC provides that, subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by an indigent person. Explanation I: A person is an indigent person, (a) if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempted from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit.

The provision of attachment before judgement is provided under Order 38, Rules 5-13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India. Order 38 of the CPC deals with the provision of arrest and detention of the defendant before judgement or after decree. Order 38, Rule 5 provides for the attachment before judgement of the property of the defendant. The other rules under this order provide for the procedure for obtaining attachment, the conditions for release of the attached property, the consequences of wrongful attachment, and other related matters. Therefore, option 1 is the correct answer.

Pecuniary jurisdiction of a court refers to the monetary value of the claim or the amount in dispute that the court is authorised to adjudicate. Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) deals with pecuniary jurisdiction. As per the section, no court has jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.

According to Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC, the defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence, provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.

Fact in issue refers to a disputed or contested element that needs to be proven or disproven during the trial.
A intended to cause B's death: This could be a fact in issue as it relates to the accused's state of mind and intention at the time of the incident. The prosecution would need to prove this to establish the charge of murder.
A had received grave and sudden provocation from B: This could be a fact in issue as it relates to the accused's state of mind and emotional response. It could potentially be used as a defense, such as provocation leading to diminished responsibility or a lesser charge like manslaughter.
A caused B's death by beating B with a club: This is a crucial fact in issue as it establishes the cause of B's death and connects the accused to the act. The prosecution would need to prove this to establish the actus reus (criminal act) element of the crime.
A had gone to fight with a club: This statement is not a fact in issue because it does not directly pertain to the elements of the crime or the guilt or innocence of the accused. It may be relevant background information but not a disputed fact to be proven at the trial.
Therefore, the answer is option 4.

Hearsay evidence must be admitted is not the main principle that underlines the Law of Evidence. The rule against the admission of hearsay evidence is
fundamental. It is not the best evidence and it is not delivered on oath. The truthfulness and accuracy of the person whose words are spoken to by another witness cannot be tested by cross-examination and the light, which his demeanour would throw on his testimony, is lost.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact - like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. Therefore, all the mentioned facts form circumstantial evidence.

When the confession is held to be admissible, then the court is to consider what weight should be given to it. As a matter of prudence and caution, which has sanctified itself in a rule of law, a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated.

The Indian Stamp Act was passed in the year 1899. The Indian Stamp Act of 1899 is an in-force Act of the Government of India for the charging of stamp duty on instruments recording transactions.

Besides the Courts of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887) and the Courts established under any other enactment for the time being in force, there shall be the following classes of Subordinate Civil Courts in Himachal Pradesh:
(a) The Court of District Judge
(b) The Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
(c) The Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act states that any person having the possession or control of a particular article of movable property of which he is not the owner may be compelled specifically to deliver it to the person entitled to its immediate possession.

(i) In a legal set off, a court fee must be paid on the set off amount, whereas no court fee is required in the case of an equitable set off. Therefore, proposition (i) is correct.
(ii) In a legal set off, the amount must not be time barred. In an equitable set off, the amount may be time barred. However, if the defendant's claim is time barred, he can claim only as much amount as is given in the plaintiff's claim. Proposition (ii) is thus incorrect.
(iii) In a legal set off, the claim does not need to originate from the same transaction, whereas in an equitable set off, the claim must originate from the same transaction. Proposition (iii) is correct.
(iv) The sum must be ascertained in a legal set off. In an equitable set off, the sum does not need to be ascertained. Therefore, proposition (iv) is incorrect.

Order 39 Rule 1 states: 'Where in any suit, it is proved by affidavit or otherwise - (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, temporary injunction may be granted.'

Explanation 1 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly states that the expression 'former suit' shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

According to Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, no barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment:
Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure-
(1) Any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose.
(2) Any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.
It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf on his client.
Thus, option 4 is the answer.

There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof; the first one is the burden to prove the main contention of the party requesting the action of the court, while the second one is the burden to produce actual evidence. The burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and the burden remains constant which never shifts, while, on the other hand, onus shifts from one to another.

Res ipsa loquitur' is a Latin phrase that means "things speak for themselves". It is one type of circumstantial evidence that allows a reasonable fact finder to determine that the defendant's negligence caused an unusual event that subsequently caused injury to the plaintiff.

The representation is one of the ingredients for application of doctrine of estoppel. It may be in the form of a declaration, act or omission. The representation also covers statement - oral or written and conduct. Thus, option 2 is the answer.

According to Section 33(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, every person having by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.

A claim for damages in suit for injunction can be laid down under Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act. According to the section, the plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction under Section 38, or mandatory injunction under Section 39, may claim damages either in addition to, or in substitution for, such injunction and the court may, if it thinks fit, award such damages. No relief for damages shall be granted under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such relief in his plaint, provided that where no such damages have been claimed in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including such claim.
The dismissal of a suit to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff shall bar his right to sue for damages for such breach.

According to Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.

Order XIV Rule 1 deals with framing of issues. Sub rule 1 expressly states that Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other.

Order VII Rule 11 contains the grounds for the rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.
Thus, option 2 is the answer.

Under the Civil Procedure Code, the number of days for which a caveat remains operative after its filing is 90 days. This means that if a caveat is filed, it will be effective and valid for a period of 90 days from the date of its filing. After the expiry of this period, the caveat will no longer have any legal effect unless it is renewed or extended.

According to section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act, in criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of a good character, is relevant.

According to section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:-
(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power—
of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved , or
of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court or
of any person legally bound to produce it,
and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
(e) when the original is public document within the meaning of section 74;
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence ;
(g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. According to clause 2 of the section, when the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty; or of an acknowledgement written or signed by him of the receipt of money, goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him, such statements are admissible.

A medical officer's report stating the injuries of the victim is considered relevant and admissible in evidence in a legal context. Such a report provides important information about the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the victim, which can be crucial in determining the facts of a case and establishing liability. Medical reports are generally considered reliable and objective sources of information, as they are prepared by trained professionals who have examined the victim and have the necessary expertise to assess and document injuries. Therefore, the report can be presented as evidence in court to support the prosecution or defense's arguments. Therefore, option 2 is the answer.
The other options are incorrect as the report is not considered conclusive in nature because it is subject to cross-examination and scrutiny by the opposing party. It is also not irrelevant as it directly pertains to the injuries suffered by the victim. Lastly, the report of a Medical Officer stating the injuries of the victim is not a substantive piece of evidence but can be taken into consideration while adjudication.

According to Section 72 of the Indian Stamp Act, every such offence committed in respect of any instrument may be tried in any district or presidency-town in which such instrument is found, as well as in any district or presidency town in which such offence might be tried under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the time being in force.