KSLU Solved Question Papers
Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2015 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act 2015 Jun Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2015 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2015 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2015 Jun examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Explain the doctrine of Res-judicata. State its objects and principles.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: meaning and nature (a mandatory rule of public policy, wider than section 11); objects (the three maxims and their practical aims); the text of section 11; the conditions, each with the Explanation that goes with it (Sheodan Singh); the extent of the rule: constructive res judicata (Nawab Hussain), reliefs deemed refused, representative suits, execution, stages of one proceeding (Satyadhyan Ghosal), writ petitions (Daryao), co-defendants (Mahboob Sahab); the circumstances in which a suit is not barred (default, withdrawal, compromise, fraud, a wrong decision on jurisdiction, Mathura Prasad); how the plea is raised and proved (Keshav Sood); a comparison with res sub judice and estoppel.
Meaning and nature
Res judicata means "a thing adjudged". When a court of competent jurisdiction has finally decided a matter between parties, the same parties cannot fight over it again. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 contains it.
Three features describe its nature:
- It is mandatory. Section 11 says "No Court shall try". Where the conditions are met, the court has no discretion.
- It is a rule of public policy. It protects the courts and society, not only the defendant.
- It is wider than section 11. The courts apply the same principle to writ petitions, to different stages of one proceeding, and to other proceedings not strictly called suits.
Objects
The rule rests on three Roman maxims:
- Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: no one should be vexed twice for the same cause.
- Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: the State has an interest in ending litigation.
- Res judicata pro veritate accipitur: what a court has decided is taken to be the truth.
In practice, the rule gives finality to decisions and saves the time of courts. It avoids conflicting judgments and protects a winning party from being harassed again.
Section 11
Section 11 bars a court from trying a suit or issue that repeats a former suit. The matter directly and substantially in issue must have been directly and substantially in issue in that former suit. The former suit must have been between the same parties, or those under whom they claim, litigating under the same title. It must have been in a court competent to try the later suit, and the matter must have been heard and finally decided.
The conditions
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue must be the same. A matter is "directly and substantially" in issue when its decision was necessary to decide the suit. Matters only collaterally or incidentally in issue do not count. Under Explanation III, the matter must have been alleged by one party and denied or admitted by the other.
2. The former suit must be between the same parties, or parties under whom they claim. A buyer from a party, an heir or a legal representative stands in the same shoes.
3. The parties must have litigated under the same title. "Title" means the capacity in which a party sues or is sued. A person who sued earlier as a trustee is not barred from suing later in his own right.
4. The former court must have been competent to try the later suit. Under Explanation II, competence is judged without regard to any right of appeal. Under Explanation VIII, a court of limited jurisdiction, such as a Small Causes Court, also binds. Its decision binds a later suit on an issue it was competent to decide.
5. The matter must have been heard and finally decided. The earlier court must have decided it on the merits. An ex parte decree counts, because the defendant had the chance to appear. Under Explanation I, "former suit" means a suit decided earlier, even if filed later.
In Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332, four suits about the same property were tried together and decided by one judgment, with separate decrees. Two appeals against some of the decrees were dismissed as time barred. The Supreme Court held on 14 January 1966 that the trial court's decision on the merits had become final. The dismissal of an appeal on a preliminary ground confirms the decision below, so the matter was heard and finally decided.
The extent of the rule
Constructive res judicata (Explanation IV). Any matter which "might and ought to have been made" a ground of attack or defence in the former suit is treated as having been in issue. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, AIR 1977 SC 1680, a dismissed police officer first challenged his dismissal by a writ petition, alleging no proper hearing, and lost. He then sued, saying the officer who dismissed him lacked authority because he was not the appointing authority. The Supreme Court held that this ground was available earlier and ought to have been raised. The suit was barred.
Reliefs not granted (Explanation V). A relief claimed but not expressly granted is deemed refused.
Representative suits (Explanation VI). Persons interested in a public or common right are bound by a bona fide representative suit.
Execution (Explanation VII). The section applies to execution proceedings too.
Stages of the same proceeding. In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941, a landlord's eviction decree was rescinded after a remand order of the High Court. The High Court then refused to hear one of his points as already decided. The Supreme Court held on 20 April 1960 that res judicata applies between two stages of one litigation, as well as between two suits. A point finally decided at one stage cannot be reopened at a later stage. But an interlocutory order not appealed against may still be challenged in an appeal from the final decision, so the landlord was heard.
Writ petitions. In Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457, the petitioners lost writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court on the merits. They then went to the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same facts. The Court held the later petitions barred by res judicata, because the principle rests on public policy.
Co-defendants. In Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail, (1995) 3 SCC 693, the High Court treated part of a land dispute as concluded by a 1951 suit between persons who had been co-defendants. The Supreme Court held on 23 March 1995 that a decision binds co-defendants only on four conditions. There must have been a conflict of interest between them, and its decision must have been necessary for the plaintiff's relief. It must have been finally decided, and they must have been necessary or proper parties. Here the defendants had jointly admitted the claim, so the plea failed.
When res judicata does not apply
- Dismissal for default or at the threshold. Nothing was heard on the merits, so section 11 does not apply. But after a dismissal under Order IX Rule 8, Rule 9 bars a fresh suit on the same cause. The remedy is to have the dismissal set aside.
- Withdrawal with leave. A suit withdrawn with permission to sue again does not bar a fresh suit (Order XXIII Rule 1).
- Compromise decree. The court decides nothing, so section 11 does not apply. The parties may still be bound by estoppel.
- Fraud or collusion. A decree obtained by fraud on the court does not bind.
- A wrong decision on jurisdiction. In Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613, an earlier order had wrongly held that a rent statute did not apply, and so that the court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that an erroneous decision on a pure question of law going to jurisdiction does not operate as res judicata.
- A change in the law. A decision on a point of law does not bind where the law has since changed.
How the plea is raised and proved
Res judicata must be pleaded in the written statement and framed as an issue. It is proved by certified copies of the pleadings, issues and judgment in the former suit. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799, the Supreme Court held on 12 September 2023 that it cannot be used to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). The earlier record is not part of the plaint.
Comparison
| Point | Res judicata | Res sub judice | Estoppel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provision | Section 11 | Section 10 | Section 121, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 |
| Stage | Former suit decided | Former suit pending | No suit needed |
| Effect | Bars the later suit or issue | Stays trial of the later suit | Bars a party from denying a fact |
| Basis | A court's decision | Pendency of a suit | A party's conduct |
Conclusion. Res judicata is a mandatory rule of public policy. It bars the retrial of a matter finally decided between the same parties by a competent court. Its conditions are identity of matter, parties and title, a competent court, and a final decision on the merits, as Sheodan Singh sets out. It extends to grounds that ought to have been raised, as Nawab Hussain shows, and to writs and later stages of the same case. It does not apply to dismissals for default, compromises, fraud or a wrong decision on jurisdiction, as Mathura Prasad holds. It must be pleaded and proved on the earlier record, as Keshav Sood holds.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 9 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.