JGU Id. No.

_____________

O.P. Jindal Global University

Jindal Global Law School
End-term Examination – Semester A

Course Name : Civil Procedure Code and Law of Limitation

Course Code : L-CT-0008
Programme : B.A., LL.B. & B.B.A., LL.B. 2017
Session : 2019 - 2020
Time Allowed : 3 Hours
Maximum Marks : 50

This question paper has five (5) printed pages (including this page).

Instructions to students:

1. DO NOT write your Name and Student Id. No. anywhere on the answer book except on the space
provided.
2. DO NOT write anything on the question paper except Student Id. No. on the space provided.
3. Start each question on a new page.
4. Use of mobile phone or any electronic storage and access system is prohibited.
5. Students undertaking the examination are requested to adhere to the University norms related to
examinations.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
This is a Closed Book examination. However, students are only allowed to bring Bare Acts of The Civil Procedure
Code and The Limitation Act. No markings on the Bare Act shall be allowed.
Warning: Plagiarism in any form is prohibited. Anyone found using unfair means will be penalized
severely.
JGLS [End-term Examination - Semester A, 2019 - 2020] Page 1
 Part A - 30 Marks

Barkat, Dholu and Buddy were three brothers. They were born to Mr. Lalu, who was the Karta of the Hindu
Undivided Family (HUF) and the sons were members of the HUF. Lalu was an affluent farmer in the Malerkotla
region and owned approximately 150 acres of agricultural land and about 35 acres of non-agricultural land (a part
of this land fell in the Gurdaspur district) (refer to map). The agricultural tracts of land had standing crops of
wheat, paddy, millets and ragi, whereas the non-agricultural lands were devoted for charitable purposes (free
school for kids, a cowshed, a hospital and an old age home) and all the properties were managed by Mr. Loki
Kumar & Sons in the capacity of agents of the HUF. Amongst other things, the non-agricultural land also housed
two cold storages for storing the produce from the agricultural lands. A majority of grains were sold in the markets
and Loki Kumar & Sons were entrusted with the task of selling the grains apart from taking care of charitable
works and keeping accounts of the entire business and non-business based activities of the HUF.

The agricultural lands (refer to the map) were separated from the non-agricultural land by a small strip of land
owned by Mr. Dara whose complete holding totalled to 100 acres. To the north side of the land was the National
Highway No. 1, to the west side of the lands was the International Border (India-Pakistan), to the east side were
other adjacent lands in the Gurdaspur district and to the south side was the Ravi river.

Mr. Dara had always wanted to buy the non-agricultural tract from Mr. Lalu as his access to the river was reduced
and Lalu had easmentary rights over Dara’s lands in order to access his non-agricultural piece. The major reason
why Dara wanted more access to the river was to smuggle goods from across the border; in the opinion of Lalu,
Dara was an agent of Useless Services and Intelligence (USI) the spy agency in Pakistan. However, this was never
proved. It is noteworthy that Lalu’s own house was not in order, all of his sons were constantly fighting with each
other in order to take control over the property as Lalu was suffering from a chronic disease. Essentially, the sons
wanted a partition of the property on the basis of the lands that they managed. Barkat was managing the fields of
paddy and ragi which is around 70 acres; Dholu and Buddy were managing wheat and millets jointly which was
approximately 80 acres.

After a certain point in time, Lalu realised that the profits in the crop business have been constantly declining,
despite the increase in the produce. He consulted Loki & Sons for the said loss, for which he never received any
cogent reason from his agent. Lalu, despite his ill health, realised that something in the management was not right,
and after investigating, he found out that Loki & Sons were hand in glove with Dara and they were involved in
smuggling arms from across the border and stashed them in the cold storage. Further, Lalu found out an
embezzlement at a large scale by the agents. This prompted him to issue a show cause notice to the agents, as
why shouldn’t their agency contract be terminated within 15 days. The agents did not respond to the notice within
the stipulated time frame, which prompted Lalu to file a suit (first suit) for damages and termination of agency
before the court of competent jurisdiction. Amongst other things the plaintiff requested the court to direct the
defendant to handover all the documents, books of account, and immovable properties managed by them (which
also included the non-agricultural lands). The defendant objected to the plaint, by stating that the court did not
have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue pertaining to the non-agricultural land as a part of the land fell within
Gurdaspur district, and only the courts in Gurdaspur had jurisdiction on the entire matter as it was essentially a
suit for delivering the possession of the land, their major argument revolved around section 16 of the CPC. The
court decided in favour of the plaintiff on jurisdiction, and decreed the entire suit at that stage itself, in favour of
the plaintiff. The defendant aggrieved by the order filed an appeal before the Appellate Court which was again
rejected and no reasons were assigned to the order of dismissal. Subsequently, the defendant/appellant filed a
JGLS [End-term Examination - Semester A, 2019 - 2020] Page 2
second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging that the defendants were not given an
opportunity to present their case on the remaining issues and therefore the decree could not be passed by the lower
court. The Second Appeal is still pending.

However, during the pendency of the First Appeal, Lalu unfortunately died intestate. Barkat, Buddy and Dholu
were impleaded as legal representatives of deceased Lalu. Also, the three brothers filed a suit for partition (second
suit) claiming portions of lands which were being managed by them, additionally they wanted the non-agricultural
land be partitioned equally amongst them. After the issues were framed in the suit for partition, Dara filed a suit
for specific performance (third suit) against the brothers for transferring the non-agricultural land to him, as he
(alleged) purchased it from Loki & Sons who were the agents of the HUF. The plaintiffs in the second suit entered
appearance in the third suit and argued that the suit was not maintainable as the suit for termination for contract
of agency had already been decreed in favour of the plaintiff in the first suit and the second appeal is pending.
The third suit was decreed in favour of the defendants, to which no further remedy was pursued by the plaintiff.
However, the plaintiff in the third suit sought impleadment in the suit for partition alongwith Loki & Sons Co,
accompanied by an application for interim injunction, restraining the plaintiffs from alienating from the suit
property. The plaintiffs in the second suit objected to the impleadment of Dara, they averred that a suit for specific
performance filed by the applicant has already been dismissed and his impleadment will serve no purpose.
However, the learned trial court allowed the impleadment application. The plaintiffs approached a court of
suitable jurisdiction for an appropriate relief challenging the impleadment.

On the basis of the above facts answer any four of the following questions. Each question bears 7.5 marks.
(4 × 7.5 = 30 Marks)

Q1. Share your views on the maintainability of the second appeal filed by the defendants in the first suit. Does
the decree which is passed in the first suit amount to a decision on the termination of the agency of Loki & Sons.
Assess the non-speaking order of First Appellate Court and its impact on the Second Appeal.

Q2. Comment on the issue of suit for land as alleged in the first suit by the defendant. Comment on the effect of
the non-agricultural land being situated partly in Malerkotla and partly in Gurdaspur on the jurisdiction of a court.

Q3. Discuss whether the objection on the grounds of res judicata taken by the plaintiffs in the second suit was
maintainable and whether the issue of termination of agency had attained finality.

Q4. Comment on the correctness of the impleadment of Dara and Loki & Sons in the suit for partition. Please
specify the correct remedy available to the plaintiffs against the order for impleadment.

Q5. If the plaintiff in the third suit had filed a subsequent suit for claiming damages, after the dismissal of the suit
for specific performance, do you think it would be permissible? Justify. However, if the defendant in third suit
filed a suit for damages against the plaintiff and Loki & Sons, do you think it would be justified?

JGLS [End-term Examination - Semester A, 2019 - 2020] Page 3

 Part B - 20 Marks

Short Notes: Attempt any four out of the six short notes. Each question bears 5 marks. (4 × 5 = 20 Marks)

1. Temporary Injunction
2. Appointment of Receiver
3. Inherent powers of Court
4. Costs
5. Distinguish between Preliminary Decree and Final Decree
6. Distinguish between Revision and Review

Case List

1. Khandesh Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Moolji Jaitha & Co. 1948 (50) Bom LR 49
2. Harshad Chimmanlal Modi v. DLF Universal, 2005 (7) SCC 791
3. Hakkam Singh v. Gammon India AIR 1971 SC 740
4. ABC Laminart v. AP Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163
5. Swastik Gases v. IOCL, 2013 (9) SCC 32
6. Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. 1968 (3) SCR 662
7. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. HSBC (2009) 8 SCC 646
8. CDS Financial v. BPL Communications (2004) 121 Comp Cas 374
9. Aspi Jal v. Khushboo Rustom (2013) 4 SCC 333
10. State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain 1977(2) SCC 806
11. Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. Board of Trustees 1978(3) SCC 119
12. Modi Entertainment Network v. WSG Cricket (2003) 4 SCC 341
13. Mumbai International Airport v. Regency Convention Centre (2010)7 SCC 417
14. Pramod P. Shah v. Ratan N. Tata & Ors. 2017 SCC Online Bom 5269
15. Inbasagaran v. S. Natarajan (2015)11 SCC 12
16. Borrodaile v. Hunter (1845)5 M&G 639
18. B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Paremswaran, (2000) 1 SCC 712
19. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. KK Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385
20. P.V. Gururaj Reddy v P. Neeradha Reddy (2015)8 SCC 331
21. T Arivandanam v T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC467
22. Salem Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344
23. Union of India v. Agarwal Iron Industries, 2014(15) SCC 215
24. Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1998) 8 SCC 396
25. Gujarat Bottling Company Limited v. Coca Cola, 1995 SCC (5) 545
26. Wander v. Antox India (P) Ltd., (1990) Supp SCC 727
27. Jagdish Singh v Madhuri Devi (2008)10 SCC 497
27. A Andisamy Chettiar v. A Subburaj Chettiar, (2015) 17 SCC 713
28. Santosh Hazari v Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179
29. Kunhayammed v State of Kerala, (2000)6 SCC 359
30. Municipal Corporation of City v. Shiv Shankar Gauri Shankar Mehta (1998) 9 SCC 197

JGLS [End-term Examination - Semester A, 2019 - 2020] Page 4