KSLU Solved Question Papers
Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2016 Dec (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act 2016 Dec (100 marks) 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 2016 Dec (100 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 Dec (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2016 Dec (100 marks) 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.
Q1Discuss the provisions of CPC relating to place of suing.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why the Code fixes the place of suing; the three questions a plaintiff asks (grade, place, subject matter); section 15 (lowest grade); suits about immovable property: section 16 and its proviso (Harshad Chiman Lal Modi), sections 17 and 18; wrongs to the person or movables: section 19 and its illustrations; all other suits: section 20, clauses (a) to (c), several defendants, and the Explanation on corporations (Patel Roadways); agreements choosing a court (A.B.C. Laminart); objections and their limits: sections 21 and 21A (Kiran Singh); return of the plaint (Order VII Rule 10); a decision table.
Why the Code fixes the place of suing
A civil suit must be filed in a court that has jurisdiction over it. Jurisdiction has three parts. The court must deal with that kind of case and be able to hear a claim of that value. It must also have authority over the place concerned. Sections 15 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deal with the last part, often called territorial jurisdiction. They are known as the rules on "place of suing".
The rules balance two interests. The plaintiff should be able to sue somewhere reasonably convenient. The defendant should not be dragged to a distant court that has no link with him or the dispute. So the Code ties each kind of suit to a place connected with the property, the wrong, the defendant or the cause of action.
Section 15: the court of the lowest grade
Section 15 says that "Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it". If a Civil Judge (Junior Division) can try a suit of that value, the plaintiff must file there, not before a senior judge. The rule spreads work across the courts and keeps the higher courts free for appeals. It is a rule of procedure. It does not take away the jurisdiction of a higher court that tries the suit.
Suits about immovable property: section 16
Section 16 lists six kinds of suit:
- for recovery of immovable property, with or without rent or profits;
- for partition of immovable property;
- for foreclosure, sale or redemption of a mortgage of, or charge on, immovable property;
- for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property;
- for compensation for wrong to immovable property; and
- for recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment.
Each must be filed in the court "within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate". The court where the land lies is best placed to inspect it, examine local records and enforce its decree.
The proviso. Some relief can be obtained "entirely" through the defendant's "personal obedience". Then the suit may also be filed where the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. A suit asking a defendant to account for the rents of his own land is an example.
In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791, a buyer agreed in Delhi to buy a plot in Gurgaon, Haryana. A clause gave the Delhi courts alone jurisdiction. When the builder cancelled the agreement, he sued in Delhi for specific performance and possession. The Supreme Court held on 26 September 2005 that the suit fell under section 16 and lay only in the court where the land was.
The proviso did not help, because possession of land cannot be obtained by the defendant's personal obedience alone. The Court added that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by agreement, consent or acquiescence. The plaint was rightly returned.
Property in two places (section 17). Where the property lies within the limits of different courts, the suit may be filed in any one of them. The whole claim must be within that court's pecuniary limits.
Uncertain limits (section 18). It may be uncertain within which court's limits the property lies. Any of those courts may then record a statement to that effect and try the suit. Its decree has the same effect as if the property were within its limits.
Wrongs to the person or to movables: section 19
Section 19 applies to a suit for compensation for a wrong done to the person or to movable property. If the wrong was done within one court's limits and the defendant lives or works within another's, the plaintiff may choose either court. The Code's illustrations make this plain:
- A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.
- A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A in either place.
All other suits: section 20
Section 20 is the residuary rule. It covers suits on contracts, debts and most other claims. A suit may be filed where:
- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants, actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain, when the suit begins;
- (b) any one of several defendants does so, but only if the court gives leave, or the other defendants acquiesce; or
- (c) the cause of action, "wholly or in part, arises".
The cause of action is the bundle of facts the plaintiff must prove to win. For a contract, it may arise where the contract was made, where it was to be performed, or where it was broken. So a plaintiff often has a choice among several courts.
Corporations. Under the Explanation, a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India. For a cause of action arising where it has a subordinate office, it is deemed to carry on business at that place.
In Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Co., (1991) 4 SCC 270, a carrier had its principal office at Bombay. Its branches booked goods at Bodinayakanur and Madras, which were damaged in transit. The owners sued where the branches were, and the carrier relied on a clause giving Bombay courts exclusive jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held on 6 August 1991 that the Explanation gives an alternative place, not an additional one. Where a cause of action arises at a place with a subordinate office, the court there alone has jurisdiction. The court of the principal office does not. No part of the cause of action arose at Bombay. So the Bombay courts had no jurisdiction, and the clause could not give it to them.
Agreements choosing a court
Parties may agree to sue in only one of two or more courts that already have jurisdiction. They cannot give jurisdiction to a court that has none, and they cannot shut out every court.
In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163, a contract was made "subject to Kaira jurisdiction", and a suit was filed at Salem. The Supreme Court held on 13 March 1989 that an agreement ousting all courts is void. A choice of one among competent courts is valid. But without clear words such as "alone" or "only", Salem was not excluded.
Objections and their limits
The Code does not let a party use a wrong place of suing to undo a decision on the merits.
- Section 21(1). An appellate or revisional court will not allow an objection to the place of suing unless the trial court heard it first. It must have been raised there at the earliest opportunity. It must be taken at or before the settlement of issues, and there must have been a consequent failure of justice.
- Section 21(2) and (3). The same rule applies to objections about pecuniary limits, and to the territorial limits of an executing court.
- Section 21A. No separate suit lies to set aside a decree on the ground that it was passed by a court in the wrong place.
In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340, the plaintiffs had undervalued their suit, so the first appeal went to the District Court instead of the High Court. After losing, they argued that the District Court's decree was a nullity. The Supreme Court rejected this on 14 April 1954. A decree passed by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction is a nullity. But an objection to the place of suing or the valuation does not make the decree void without prejudice on the merits.
Return of the plaint
If the trial court finds that it lacks territorial jurisdiction, it does not dismiss the suit. Under Order VII Rule 10, it returns the plaint to be presented to the proper court.
A decision table
| Kind of suit | Section | Where to sue |
|---|---|---|
| Any suit | 15 | The lowest grade of court competent to try it |
| Land: possession, partition, mortgage, other rights, wrongs | 16 | Where the property is situated |
| Kind of suit | Section | Where to sue |
|---|---|---|
| Land, relief by personal obedience | 16, proviso | Where the property is, or where the defendant lives or works |
| Land in two districts | 17 | Any court where part of it lies |
| Wrong to the person or movables | 19 | Where the wrong was done, or where the defendant lives or works |
| Contracts, debts and others | 20 | Where the defendant lives or works, or where the cause of action arises |
Conclusion. The Code fixes the place of suing by the kind of suit. Every suit goes first to the lowest competent grade of court. Suits about land go where the land is, unless the relief can be had through the defendant's personal obedience, as Harshad Chiman Lal Modi explains. Torts give a choice between the place of the wrong and the defendant's home. All other suits lie where the defendant lives or works, or where the cause of action arises. A company is sued at its branch where the cause arose, as Patel Roadways holds. Parties may choose among competent courts but cannot create jurisdiction, as A.B.C. Laminart holds. A late objection to the place of suing cannot defeat a decree without failure of justice, as Kiran Singh shows.
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.