CPC QUESTION PAPER SET 1

This is a semi-open book exam:

(a) Students can carry unmarked bare Acts of CPC 1908, the Limitation Act
1963 and the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
(b) A case list has been provided with this paper.
(c) No other reading material may be carried into the exam hall.
(d) The students are not allowed to carry, laptops, mobile phones or any other
electronic device that is interactive in nature.

Part A Essay Questions

Any two
(10x 2=20)
1. Differentiate between Legal and Equitable Set Off

2. Explain constructive res judicata, with case laws.

3. Explain the statement, “the plaintiff is the dominus litis in civil litigation”.

Part: B Hypothetical
Answer any two (15 x 2=30)
1. BioCure Innovations is a pharmaceutical company that has its work site
and office in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. It placed certain purchase orders
worth Rs. 2.3 crores for supply of printed aluminum collapsible tubes with
InfiniteTube Innovations, a company which has its registered office in
Delhi, and has manufacturing plant and delivery office in Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh. The purchase orders were received and accepted at Delhi.
Pursuant to the purchase orders, InfiniteTube Innovations made deliveries
from its Ghaziabad office to BioCure Innovations at its work site at Baddi,
Himachal Pradesh and raised a number of invoices. The invoices were in
the standard format and had a statement at the bottom which read
“Subject to Ghaziabad Jurisdiction Only”. The deliveries were accepted at
Baddi. However, even after receipt of the goods, BioCure Innovations
failed to make payments for the goods supplied.
Accordingly, InfiniteTube Innovations filed a recovery suit in the High Court
of Delhi claiming recovery of Rs. 2.5 crores, with pendente lite and future
interest. In the Written Statement, BioCure Innovations, apart from the
other defences taken, raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial
jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. Consequently, the following
preliminary issue was framed for consideration: —
“Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present suit? OPD”
 Present arguments for both sides, and decide. (15)
2. Omkar Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ODPL) was in the business of acquiring land in
Delhi NCR that they subsequently developed to build residential properties
on. For one of their projects, ODPL was keen to acquire a plot of land in
Dwarka owned by one Raghu Parashar, a businessman based out of Delhi.
Despite several discussions, however, Raghu was not keen to sell his
property to ODPL, claiming it to be ancestral land that he intended to
retain for his family. Raghu’s land was situated at a critical point on the
site that ODPL wanted to develop, and ODPL’s inability to acquire it meant
that they would not be able to build a direct entryway from the main road
into the site property.
While discussions between ODPL and Raghu were ongoing, ODPL’s legal
team found out about a suit that was pending against Raghu before the
Delhi High Court. The suit had been filed by Raghu’s brother, Ritesh, who
claimed that the property belonged to him. An interim injunction had been
passed in the suit prohibiting Raghu from alienating, selling or transferring
the land to a third party without seeking leave of the Court. ODPL filed an
application seeking impleadment as an additional defendant in the
pending suit before the Delhi High Court, contending that ODPL’s interest
was likely to be directly affected if any relief was granted to the plaintiff in
the suit. Raghu and Ritesh individually objected to ODPL’s application.
Discuss the arguments that may be presented by ODPL, Ritesh, and
Raghu, and decide whether ODPL’s impleadment application should be
allowed, while elaborating on relevant legal concepts and principles.
Please support your answer with relevant provisions of the CPC 1908 as
well as applicable case law.
(15 marks)
3. ModernTech Pvt. Ltd., a technology firm based in Bengaluru, Karnataka,
entered into a contract with EcoBuild Constructions, a construction company in
Pune, Maharashtra, to design and construct their new corporate office in
Bangalore. According to the agreement, EcoBuild was to complete the
construction by December 2022. However, due to alleged unforeseen
circumstances, the project was delayed, and the completion date was extended
to June 2023. ModernTech, dissatisfied with the delay and suspecting that the
reasons were not justifiable, decided to file a suit for breach of contract and
claimed damages, against EcoBuild.
After filing the lawsuit, ModernTech discovered that in October 2022 EcoBuild had
entered a contract with Starlight Industries, a leading phone manufacturing firm,
to design and construct an IT park, in Bangalore, which would include their head
office, multiple other office spaces for other leading companies and various
recreational areas. ModernTech believes that EcoBuild has diverted resources to
this project, intentionally causing the delay.

(a) Discuss the principles and requirements for constructing pleadings in civil
suits as outlined under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. How should
 ModernTech Pvt. Ltd. structure its pleadings to effectively present its case
and ensure that the real issues in controversy are accurately reflected in
the court proceedings? (5 marks)

(b) Analyse whether ModernTech Pvt. Ltd. should be allowed to amend its
plaint under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Discuss the principles
governing the amendment of pleadings and examine the circumstances
under which the court may allow or reject such amendments. Refer to
relevant case law to substantiate your analysis. (10 marks)

4. (Answer both A & B) ( 8+7=15)

A. M/S Neelkanth Industries is a private company (Company), incorporated in
Bombay wherein the sole Members and Directors are Mr. and Mrs.
Adlakha. The Company entered into an agreement with Kolkata based
Salim Tanneries for the supply of processed leather for fancy leather bags
manufactured by MS. Neelkanth. The agreement was entered into by the
parties on 2.08.2017. At the time of the agreement the Adlakhas resided
in Delhi but shifted completely to Bombay by July of [Link] contract
was signed and executed in Kolkata. The delivery of goods were made in
Bombay, the manufacturing took place in Bombay and the contract was to
be performed in Bombay.

The agreement had inter-alia two clauses.

Clause X read simply “Jurisdiction: The Agreement shall be subject to

jurisdiction of the civil court at Kolkata

CL IX read “In case of dispute arbitration before the Delhi Arbitration

Chambers”.
As per the rules of Delhi Arbitration Chambers “all seat of arbitration in
matters decided by the Chamber is in Delhi unless, the parties decide
otherwise.
It is to be noted that Salim had no presence anywhere outside Kolkata and
in till 2018 Neelkanth maintained an agent in Kolkata.
Now dispute arose between the parties on 2.04.2021 pertaining to the
performance of the contract. The Company alleged that Salim Tanneries
has failed to deliver the goods of requisite quality and sought damages of
Rs. 22 lakhs from the respondent. The notice for arbitration was given on
2.04.2021 and on 2.08.2021 post Salim Tanneries refusal to participate in
the arbitration, M/S Neelkanth approached the High Court in Delhi under
s.11 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. Salim
Tanneries argued that the Delhi High Court does not have jurisdiction in
the matter. Neelkanth on the other hand submitted that High Court of
Delhi has jurisdiction because it is the court of the seat. They were also
agreeable to filing the application in Bombay but not Kolkata, as they have
no office there and no way to pursue the matter.
Put yourself in the shoes of counsels of the parties what your respective
arguments would be?
(*Under s.11 of the Arbitration Act the territorial jurisdiction for appointment of
arbitrator lies in the same court where the parties would have filed the suit, if
they had no arbitration clause in the contract). (7)
.B. Red is a private ltd company. It is owned by three people Mr. A (54%) Mr.B
(26%), Ms C (20%).They are siblings. The substratum of the Company is a
piece and parcel of land XYZ in Haryana and a shade on the land which is
being used as a go-down. On July 31st 2021 Mr.B brought an action for
oppression against Mr. A and the directors appointed by Mr.A, wherein he
alleged that Mr.A is illegally and systematically alienating the land to
various persons, who are buying the land benami for Mr.A. Subsequently
Ms.C also joined in as a plaintiff in that action for oppression and
mismanagement.
The Court subsequently appointed a Receiver for the property being Mr.
Lal vide an order dated 7.11.2021 (order1), in spite of Mr.A’s offer to keep
heavy security. Mr.A has a challenged that order and the same is pending.
(appeal 1)
[Link] however never went to the land. He kept an eye on the property
sitting in his office in Delhi. On 8.06.2022 Mr.A filed an application before
the Court stating that [Link] has rented the go-down to one Mr. Singh for
almost half the market rent of the godown, and Mr. Lal be removed from
office. [Link] apparently has stored contraband items in that go down.
[Link] denies this. The Court dismissed that application. Mr.A filed an
appeal against the same(order 2 & appeal 2).
The two appeals have been taken together. How might the Appellate Court
decide the same? (8)

CASE LIST
A Andisamy Chettiar v A Subburaj Chettiar (2015) 17 SCC 713
Adcon Electronics Pvt Ltd v Daulat AIR 2001 SC 3712: (2001) 7 SCC 698
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Ors. 2019(13)
SCALE575
Aspi Jal v Khusboo Rustom (2013) 4 SCC 333
B.K. Narayana Pillai v Paremswaran (2000) 1 SCC 712
Daryao v State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 1457
Dhulabhai v State of M.P. (1968) 3 SCR 662
Gujarat Bottling Company Limited v Coca-Cola (1995) 5 SCC 545
Gurbux Singh v Bhooralal 1964 AIR 1810 : 1964 SCR (7) 831
Harnandrai Badridas v Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad 1973 AIR 2423 : 1974 SCR (1)
210 : (1973) 2 SCC 469
Harshad Chimmanlal Modi v DLF Universal (2005) 7 SCC 791
Hiralal v Kalinath (1962) 2 SCR 747
Hope Plantations Ltd vs Taluk Land Board Peermade & Anr 1999 (5) SCC 590,
Horil v Keshav & Anr (2012) 5 SCC 525
Inbasagaran v S. Natarajan (2015) 11 SCC 12
Indian Bank v Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd (1985) 5
SCC 69
Kandla Export Corporation & Ors. vs OCI Corporation (2018)14SCC715
Khandesh Spinning & Weaving v Mool Jaith & Co 1948 (50) BOM LR 49
Kiran Singh & Ors v Chaman Paswan 1954 AIR 340 : 1955 SCR 117
Kunhayammed v State of Kerala 2000 (3) KLT354
Modi Entertainment v WSG Cricket (2003) 4 SCC 341
Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr 1995 SCC Supl. (4)
286
Mumbai International Airport v Regency Convention (2010) 7 SCC 417
Municipal Corporation of City v Shiv Shankar Gauri Shankar Mehta (1998) 9 SCC
197
P.V. Gururaj Reddy v P. Neeradha Reddy (2015) 8 SCC 331
Pramod P. Shah v Ratan N Tata (2017) SCC OnLine Bom 5269
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v KK Modi (2006) 4 SCC 385
Santosh Hazari v Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179
Satnam Singh & Ors v Surnder Kaur & Anr (2009) 2SCC 562
Swastik Gases v IOCL (2013) 9 SCC 32
T Arivandanam v T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467
Wander v Antox India Pvt Ltd (1990) Supp SCC 727
 ANSWER KEYS
1.
Defendant arguments-
Delhi Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as
no cause of action arose in Delhi and merely because the plaintiff has its
registered office in Delhi would not confer upon this Court with jurisdiction to try
the present suit.
The purchase orders were issued by the Defendant from Baddi, Himachal
Pradesh and the goods were manufactured and dispatched from the factory
premises of the plaintiff at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh to Baddi in Himachal
Pradesh. Therefore, either the Courts at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh or Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh could have had jurisdiction. However, given the ouster clause
contained in the invoices issued by the plaintiff, courts in Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh alone have jurisdiction to try the present case.
Plaintiff Arguments-
The purchase orders placed by Defendant were received and accepted by the
Plaintiff at its office in Delhi and therefore, the contract in fact came into
existence in Delhi.
Invoices would not have any bearing qua jurisdiction as the same were unilateral
communications on behalf of the plaintiff which were not accepted by the
defendant. He submitted that in absence of consensus ad idem between the
parties, the said clause would not be binding upon the parties and therefore, the
said clause cannot oust the jurisdiction of this Court.
Judgment-
The purchase orders were issued from Baddi which were received at Delhi and
subsequently the goods were dispatched by the plaintiffs from the Ghaziabad to
defendant work site at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. In view of the aforesaid, since
parts of the cause of action has arisen at all of the above mentioned three
places, ordinarily the Courts at all these places would be competent to entertain
any dispute arising out of these transactions between the parties. However, the
Court has to examine the legal consequences of the ouster clause “Subject to
Ghaziabad Jurisdiction Only” contained in the invoices issued by the plaintiff to
the defendants.
Insofar as the issue regarding the principles of forum selection is concerned, it is
a settled law that where there may be more than one competent Court which can
entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arising
therein, the parties to the contract can agree to vest jurisdiction in one of such
competent courts to try the dispute which might arise between the parties and
such an agreement would be valid and binding upon the parties.

Applicable sections s. 20(c) , 21

Case laws Swastik Gas, Modi Entertainment.

1. The answer should be based on Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and the Supreme Court
judgment of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v Regency Convention Centre
and Ors.

ARGUMENTS:

ODPL’s arguments:
 That it was crucial for ODPL to acquire the land for the development of property.
However, the land could not be transferred to ODPL because of the interim
injunction that had been passed in the pending suit.
 ODPL had an interest in the suit land. In any event, it was interested in acquiring
the land depending upon the decision of the suit and was, therefore, a necessary
or proper party to the suit.
Ritesh’s arguments:
 ODPL did not have any interest in the suit property, and was neither a necessary
nor a proper party to the suit.
 The dispute and the consequent suit was between Ritesh and Raghu and did not
concern ODPL at all, which had not acquired any interest in the suit land.
 Impleading a party at this stage would only delay the proceedings.

Raghu’s arguments:
 There was no basis for ODPL to argue that the land could not be transferred to
ODPL because of the interim injunction passed in the suit. Raghu had already
conveyed to ODPL that he was not interested in selling the land. Therefore,
ODPL had no present or future interest in the property, and were neither a
necessary nor a proper party to the suit.
 Impleading a party at this stage would only delay the proceedings.

DECISION:

Legal concepts and principles:

 Students are expected to discuss the essentials of Order 1 Rule 10(2).
o The general rule of dominus litis (plaintiff may choose the persons
against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a
person against whom he does not seek any relief);
o That the rule of dominus litis is subject to O1R10(2) which provides
for impleadment of proper or necessary parties.
o Discuss O1R10(2) – ‘court may strike out or add parties’. Court may
at any stage, either on application of either party or on its own, direct
that any of the following persons may be added as a party to the suit –
(a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff/defendant but
was not added, or (b) any person whose presence before the court may
be necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate
the matter.
 Students are expected to discuss the concept of necessary party and proper
party and the consequences of not impleading such parties.
o If a person is not found to be a necessary or proper party, court has no
jurisdiction to implead him against the wishes of the plaintiff.
o The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit
property, after the suit is decided, will not make him a necessary
party or a proper party to the suit.
 O1R10(2) is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party,
but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at
any stage of a proceeding. The court exercises this discretion according to
reason and fair play and depending on the facts and circumstances and no person
has a right to insist that he should be impleaded as a party, merely because
he is a proper party.

Application to the given facts:

  ODPL’s argument (assuming it to be correct for the sake of argument) that the
interim injunction prevented ODPL from acquiring the land only shows that
ODPL does not have any title to the land.
 The argument that if Raghu succeeded in the suit, Raghu may sell the disputed
land to ODPL is not sufficient to hold that ODPL has any right, interest, or
semblance of right or interest in the suit property.
 The argument that ODPL is likely to acquire a right/interest in the suit property
after the suit is decided will not make ODPL a necessary or proper party to the
suit.
 When neither ODPL, nor Ritesh, is claiming any right or remedy against each
other, ODPL cannot be a party to the suit. The argument that the land is crucial
for property development by ODPL is not relevant to the issue.
 ODPL’s presence is not necessary for passing an effective decree in the suit, or
for complete and effective adjudication of the matter in the suit.
 Therefore, ODPL’s impleadment application will not succeed.

3.
Order 6, Rule 2, Rule 4, Rule 7, Rule 10 – 15.
Pleadings should contain a concise statement of material facts on which the party relies for
their claim or defence but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. This includes the
facts constituting the cause of action and any facts showing the court has jurisdiction.
ModernTech Pvt. Ltd. should ensure that their pleadings in the lawsuit against EcoBuild
Constructions clearly state the specifics of the contract, the obligations of both parties, the
alleged breach, and the consequent damages. It is crucial to detail the timeline, the agreement
terms, the nature of the delay, and the newly discovered evidence of resource diversion.
By precisely stating these material facts, ModernTech would provide a clear basis for the
issues to be decided by the court, aligning the pleadings with the objectives of the lawsuit and
ensuring that the trial focuses on the real disputes between the parties.

3 (b)
The principles governing the amendment of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC
permit amendments that are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, as
long as they do not introduce a completely new or alien case or cause injustice or undue
delay.
Leave to amend when granted – Leave to amend will be granted so as to enable the real
question in issue between the parties to be raised in pleadings, where the amendment will
occasion no injury to the opposite party and can be sufficiently compensated for by costs or
other terms to be imposed by the order.
Leave to amend when refused – (1) Leave to amend will be refused where the amendment is
not necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the
parties. (2) Leave to amend will be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and
inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of the suit or defence. (3) Leave to
amend will be refused where the effect of the proposed amendment is to take away from the
other side a legal right accrued in his favour. (4) Leave to amend will be refused where the
application for amendment is not made in good faith.
ModernTech's desire to amend its plaint to include new evidence and claims should be
evaluated based on whether these amendments would aid in the comprehensive resolution of
the dispute at hand. Since the additional facts are related to the original cause of action
(breach of contract) and aim to provide a fuller picture of EcoBuild's alleged breach, the
amendment could be seen as facilitating the effective adjudication of the case.
The court would need to consider the timing of the amendment and its impact on the
proceedings, ensuring that it does not prejudice EcoBuild's defence or cause unreasonable
delays. If the amendments align with the objectives of justice and efficient trial conduct, they
should be permitted to enable a thorough examination of all pertinent aspects of the case.
Relevant Case Law –
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v KK Modi (2006) 4 SCC 385
B.K. Narayana Pillai v Paremswaran (2000) 1 SCC 712

4. A. The Case is completely covered by the Swastik Gas.

Delhi High Court have no proper jurisdiction in the matter since jurisdiction has been
excluded by the parties Even if the former residence of Adlakhas are counted then the term
used in s.20 is “resides” not resided. In any case that is just a red herring in the problem
testing the student’s ability to judge facts
Bombay High Court can said to have proper jurisdiction but ousted by the jurisdiction clause.
Whether exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction, tests in ABC Laminart & Swastik Gas also
use the fact that the party has no presence outside Kolkata, and the other had an agent
factually shows that the clause was meant to be exclusive.

B. In Appeal 1 security is not a sine qua non for appointment of receiver which is a
discretion of court. Receiver may be appointed to prevent alienation. However,
Receiver is not usually appointed to remove the defendant from defacto possession.
Order 40 R 1 & 3 ; Oder 43 R 1
In appeal 2 , the Receiver can be removed from office if in contravention of the orders
of the court. Alienation of the land without leave of the court and damage to property
can create personal liability on the Receiver.
For extra credits the students can also state that usually in an appeal from an interim
order the court usually do not change the trial courts order.