Part 1 MCQ Quiz in বাংলা - Objective Question with Answer for Part 1 - বিনামূল্যে ডাউনলোড করুন [PDF]

The correct option is Both I and II.

Key Points

• Section 34: Interest
  • Interest as defined in Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as:
    • "Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such a rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period before the institution of the suit,[ with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum], from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit."
• Section 35: Costs
  • ​ Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the costs.
  • The provision grants the right to the discretion of the court that it may grant an order for paying the cost to the winning party for the expenses incurred in maintaining the suit or to pay for the amount that the winning party has incurred while drafting legal notices and contracts.
  • This amount is subject to be paid by the losing party.
  • This remedy shall not be treated as any reward to the winning party on one side and as a punishment to the losing party on the other side.
  • All the necessary direction about that shall be given by the court.
  • In cases where the Court refuses to grant the cost, it shall give in writing for doing so. Costs are at the discretion of the court.
  • It must be exercised reasonably if the court deems fit to do so and not by caprice or chance.
  • This discretion of the court must be exercised considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

The correct option is Option 4.

Key Points

• Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) deals with the jurisdiction objections.
• The purpose of this section is to safeguard honest litigants and to prevent harassment of plaintiffs who have commenced actions in good faith before a court that is later determined to lack jurisdiction.
• Section 21 of CPC:
  • Section 21 of CPC states that-
    • No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
    • No objection as to the competence of a Court concerning the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
    • No objection as to the competence of the executing Court concerning the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
• Under this Section, no objection as to the place of suing will be allowed by an appellate or revisional court unless the following three conditions are satisfied:
  • The objection was taken in the court of first instance.
  • It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled, at or before the settlement of issues.
  • There has been a consequent failure of justice.
  • The Supreme Court in the case of Pathumma v. Kuntalan Kutty (1981), held that all these three conditions must co-exist.
  • The principles of this Section also apply to execution proceedings.

The correct option is 5000.

Key Points

• Section 32:- Penalty for default
• Section 32:- The Court may compel the attendance of any person to whom a summons has been issued under section 30 and for that purpose may:
  • Issue a warrant for his arrest.
  • Attach and sell his property
  • Impose a fine upon him [not exceeding five thousand rupees]
  • Order him to furnish security for his appearance and in default commit him to the civil prison.

The correct answer is Parties to suit.

Key Points

• In the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, AIR 2005 SC 2813, The Supreme Court laid down the following two tests to determine whether a party is a necessary party:
  (i) There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the matter involved in the proceeding in question, and
  (ii) It should not be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such a party. 

The correct answer is option 4.Key Points

• Section 11 of the CPC states that once an issue has been finally decided by a court, it cannot be made the subject matter of another suit. The Courts are barred from entertaining suits in which the matter directly and substantially at issue has already been finally decided by another court in a previous suit. 
• Explanation 5 of section 11 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 states any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
• The 1976 Amendment Act expanded the scope of Section 11 and brought execution proceedings within the purview of this Act. The definition of res judicata provided under Section 11 is not exhaustive. 

Additional Information

• The doctrine of res-Judicata is based upon the following maxims: 
  • Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa
  • Res judicata pro veritate accipitur
  • Interest republicae ut sit finis litium
• Section 11: No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
  Explanation I.-- 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.
  Explanation II.-- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
  Explanation III.--The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
  Explanation IV.-- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
  Explanation V.-- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
  Explanation VI.-- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating .
  [Explanation VII.-- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
  Explanation VIII.-- An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

The correct answer is option 3.Key Points

• Res Sub judice, a Latin maxim meaning “under judgment,” is a legal principle rooted in public policy.
• It prohibits a plaintiff from initiating two simultaneous claims on the same subject matter, thereby preventing the possibility of conflicting rulings from different courts. 
• Section 2(5) of CPC, a foreign Court means a Court situated outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government.
• Section 10 of C.P.C 1908 provides stay of suit.
• It says no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.
• Explanation of section 10 says the pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.

The correct answer is option 3.Key Points In Duchess of Kingston's Case, (1776) 20 St Tr 355 its was held res Judicata dictates that a right or fact established by a competent Court in an earlier proceeding ought to be conclusive and binding upon the parties and those in privity with law or in estate.

The correct answer is decided prior to the suit in question

Key Points Section 11. Res judicata

• No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or
• between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title,
• in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and
• has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Explanation I.-- 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.
Explanation II.-- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III.--The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV.-- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V.-- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
Explanation VI.-- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating .
Explanation VII.-- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Explanation VIII.-- An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

Explanation: It is an illustration provided under amended Section 35 ie Costs as per the CCA, 2015. It is based on the sub-section 2 of section 35 which states that if the Court decides to make an order for payment of costs, the general rule is that the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. However, the Court may make an order deviating from the general rule for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Explanation: All the three cases Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail, Cottingham vs. Early of Shrewbury and Govindammalvs. Vaidyanathan are related to resjudicata between co-defendant. The requisite conditions to apply the principle of res judicata as between co-defendants are that

(a) there must be conflict of interest between the defendants concerned,

(b) it must be necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and

(c) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided.