HP Judicial Services (Prelims) Mock - 2 (Civil Law - I) - Judiciary Exams MCQ

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was amended by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002, with the object to cut short delay in the disposal of suits. Therefore, option 1 is the correct answer.
The amendments made in 2002 aimed to streamline the civil justice system in India and make it more efficient. The amendments were made to provide for more expeditious disposal of cases, encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and reduce the burden on the courts.
Some of the key changes made under the 2002 Amendment Act include:

• Introduction of mandatory pre-litigation mediation
• Time-bound disposal of cases
• Introduction of summary trials
• Empowerment of courts to award costs for frivolous or vexatious litigation
• Introduction of electronic filing of documents and pleadings

Overall, the amendments made in 2002 were aimed at reducing the delay in the disposal of suits and making the civil justice system more effective and efficient.

Under Order IV, Rule 1, sub-rule (1) of CPC, every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint in duplicate to the court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf.

According to the provisions embedded under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, if a person makes a confession thinking that it will be advantageous for him to admit his guilt then the same is considered inadmissible. Therefore, confession of an accused is irrelevant and inadmissible when made before a magistrate, who told him that if he made a full confession, he would be released.

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, court includes all judges and magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. Thus, option 1 is the correct answer.

The fact that, without making a complaint, she said that she had been ravished is not relevant as conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under Section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under Section 157.

Secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original.

According to Section 138, the re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if a new matter is, by permission of the court, introduced in-re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter. Therefore, during re-examination of a witness, a new matter can be introduced only with the permission of the court.

Part III of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with preventive relief. This part of the Act provides for the grant of temporary and perpetual injunctions to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the applicant. It also provides for the grant of mandatory injunctions in certain cases where a party is required to perform a specific act.

Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act deals with specific performance of a part of a contract. Clause 1 of the section clearly states that except as otherwise hereinafter provided in this section, the court shall not direct the specific performance of a part of a contract. So, option 2 is incorrect.
Clause 3 states that where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, and the part which must be left unperformed either—
(a) forms a considerable part of the whole, though admitting of compensation in money; or
(b) does not admit of compensation in money;
he is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance.
Thus, option 1 is correct.
Clause 4 further states that when a part of a contract which, taken by itself, can and ought to be specifically performed, stands on a separate and independent footing from another part of the same contract which cannot or ought not to be specifically performed, the court may direct specific performance of the former part. Thus, option 3 is also correct.
Hence, option 4 is the answer.

According to Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.

Section 151 of C.P.C. reads that nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of the justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

Order 9, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that where on the day so fixed it is found that the summons has not been served upon the defendant in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the court-fee of postal charges (if any) chargeable for such service, or failure to present copies of the plaint or concise statements, as required by Rule 9 of Order 7, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed.
Rule 3 provides "Where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed."
Rule 5 provides "Where after a summons has been issued to the defendant, or to one of several defendants, and returned unserved, the plaintiff fails, for a period of seven days from the date of the return made to the Court by the officer ordinarily certifying to the Court returns made by the serving officers, to apply for the issue of a fresh summons, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed as against such defendant, unless the plaintiff has within the said period satisfied the Court that-
(a) he has failed after using his best endeavours to discover the residence of the defendant, who has not been served, or
(b) such defendant is avoiding service of process, or
(c) there is any other sufficient cause for extending the time, in which case the Court may extend the time for making such application for such period as it thinks fit."
Thus, option 4 is the answer.

Section 47A of the Evidence Act states that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the digital signature of any person, the opinion of the Certifying Authority which has issued the Digital Signature Certificate is a relevant fact.

Section 23 deals with the question as to 'admissions in civil cases, when relevant'. It states that in civil cases, no admission is relevant if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.

Section 154 allows that a party calling a witness may, with the permission of the court, put leading questions and cross-examine him when it is found that he is a hostile or unwilling to answer questions put to him. It is discretion of the court to allow party to cross-examine his own witness.

The provision relating to hostile witness is provided in Section 154 of the Evidence Act.
A hostile witness is one who from the manner in which he gives evidence shows that he is not desirous of telling the truth to the court. He is a person who is interested to give evidence for the party who wanted him to give in its favour.

Section 63 of the Indian Stamp Act: Any person required by Section 12 to cancel an adhesive stamp, and failing to cancel such stamp in manner prescribed by that section, shall be publishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.

Section 25 of the Himachal Pradesh Courts Act says that the High Court may from time to time make rules consistent with the Himachal Pradesh Courts Act and any other enactment for the time being in force regarding the petition writers.

Section 11 of the Specific Relief Act, 1930 provides for cases in which specific performance of contracts connected with trusts is enforceable. The section reads as follows:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, specific performance of a contract may, in the discretion of the court, be enforced when the act agreed to be done is in the performance wholly or partly of a trust.
(2) A contract made by a trustee in excess of his powers or in breach of trust cannot be specifically enforced.

Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains provisions relating to suits by or against corporations. According to Rule 1 of the order, in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.

Order X Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:
(1) At the first hearing of the suit, the Court-
(a) shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit, examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in Court, as it deems fit; and
(b) may orally examine any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom any party appearing in person or present in Court or his pleader is accompanied.
(2) At any subsequent hearing, the Court may orally examine any party appearing in person or present in Court, or any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom such party or his pleader is accompanied.
(3) The Court may, if it thinks fit, put in the course of an examination under this rule questions suggested by either party.

Order XV of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with disposal of the suit at the first hearing.
According to Rule 1, where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment.
Rule 2 states that where there are more defendants than one, and any one of the defendants is not at issue with the plaintiff on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment for or against such defendant and the suit shall proceed only against the other defendants.
Rule 3 provides that if the court is satisfied that no injustice will result from proceeding with the suit forthwith, the Court may proceed to determine the issues, and, if the finding thereon is sufficient for the decision, may pronounce judgment accordingly.
Rule 4 provides that where the summons has been issued for the final disposal of the suit and either party fails without sufficient cause to produce the evidence on which he relies, the Court may at once pronounce judgment.

Set off may be defined as the extinction of debts of which two persons are reciprocally debtors to one another by the credits of which they are reciprocally creditors to one another. However, in this specific scenario, where 'A' and 'B' are suing 'C' for recovery of Rs. 1,000, and 'C' has a debt due to him by 'A' alone, 'C' cannot use this debt to set off against 'A' or 'B'. The reason is that for a valid set-off, there must be a mutual debt between the parties involved. In this case, the debt is only owed by 'A' to 'C', and 'B' has no direct obligation towards 'C'. Therefore, 'C' cannot set off the debt due by 'A' alone against the claim made by 'A' and 'B'. Hence, the correct answer is that 'C' cannot set off a debt due to him by 'A' alone.

Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that one person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest. According to clause 1, where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit,-
(a) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested;
(b) the Court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested.

Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for relevancy of judgments in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction. The section expressly provides that such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof, i.e. the court will not admit any proof contradicting the presumption. Thus, it is correct that the presumption under section 41 is an irrefutable presumption of law.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the definition of 'court' which clearly states that court includes all judges and magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence.

When the relatives of the declarant are present during dying declaration, the dying declaration will be relevant and admissible.

Section 2 sub clause 16 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899 says that lease means a lease of immovable property and also includes
(a) a patta
(b) a kabuliyat or other undertaking in writing, not being a counterpart of a lease, to cultivate, occupy, or pay or deliver rent for immovable property
(c) any instrument by which tolls of any description are let
(d) any writing on an application for a lease intended to signify that the application is granted

Under the Specific Relief Act, a suit for recovery of possession can be filed in respect of both movable and immovable property. Section 5 of the Act deals with Recovery of specific immovable property. Section 7 provides for the Recovery of specific movable property.

Section 14A of the Specific Relief Act provides for Power of court to engage experts. The section reads as follows:
(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in any suit under this Act, where the court considers it necessary to get expert opinion to assist it on any specific issue involved in the suit, it may engage one or more experts and direct to report to it on such issue and may secure attendance of the expert for providing evidence, including production of documents on the issue.
(2) The court may require or direct any person to give relevant information to the expert or to produce, or to provide access to, any relevant documents, goods or other property for his inspection.
(3) The opinion or report given by the expert shall form part of the record of the suit; and the court, or with the permission of the court any of the parties to the suit, may examine the expert personally in open court on any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his opinion or report, or as to his opinion or report, or as to the manner in which he has made the inspection.
(4) The expert shall be entitled to such fee, cost or expense as the court may fix, which shall be payable by the parties in such proportion, and at such time, as the court may direct.