DJS 2019 : Here Are The 9 Questions Corrected By Delhi High Court

The Division of Bench Justice Muralidhar and Justice Talwant Singh also went on to order the High Court to reevaluate the marks on the basis of the corrected answer-key and release the cut-off list again.

Following are the answers that have been corrected by the court:

Question: 'A' filed a suit against three defendants. Defendant No.1 alleged that there was no cause of action against him under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The Plaint is to be:
(1) Rejected in whole
(2) Rejected in part if cause of action is not joint and several
(3) Proceed with against all the defendants
(4) None of the above."

The answer key declared the answer to be (2) but the Petitioners claimed it to be (3). The court relied upon the recent Supreme Court judgment in Madhav PrasadAggarwal & Anr. v. Axis BankLtd  which held that:

'if the plaint survives against certain defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial'.

Hence, the court accepted the claim of the Petitioners and declared the correct answer to be (3).

Question: Contract for sale of a Maruti Ciaz Car:
1. Can be specifically enforced.
2. Cannot be specifically enforced.
3. Only damages can be claimed.
4. Both (2 and 3)

According to the answer key provided by the High Court, the correct answer is (2) above whereas according to Petitioners it is (1).

The court corrected the answer by noting that:

'The question is simply that there is a contract for sale of a Maruti Ciaz Car. There is nothing to indicate whether the contract is in its very nature determinable. Only if that fact is clearly stated can the student be expected to opt for answer (2). Otherwise given the wording of Section 10 of the SR Act as amended in 2018 a contract is mandatorily enforceable whereas under the unamended Section 10 it was a matter still in the discretion of the Court. The question has not accounted for the amended Section 10 of the SR Act. The Court is of the view, that the benefit must therefore be given to the candidates like the Petitioners who may have proceeded on the basis that the correct answer is (1) above'.

Question: A compromise decree
1. Operates as the res-judicata between the parties to the compromise
2. Does not operate as res-judicata
3. (1) or (2) depending on the circumstances of each case
4. (1) or (2) depending on the discretion of court"

The correct answer according to the answer key is (1) above, whereas the Petitioners state that it is (2).

The court accepted the Petitioner's averment by relying upon the judgment in Sunderbhai Deshpande v Devaji Deshpande AIR 1954 SC 82 which had held that a compromise decree closes once for all the disputes between the parties; that they would be bound by the terms of the compromise and the consent decree following upon it.

Question: 'A' and 'B' go into a shop. 'B' says to the shopkeeper Let 'A' have the goods. I will see that you are paid.
1. Guarantee
2. Bailment
3. Indemnity
4. Pledge

The answer key states that the correct answer is (3) whereas according to the Petitioners, it is (1).

The court relied upon the rule laid down in State Bank of India v Mool Sehkarai Sakkar Karkhana (2006) 6 SCC 293 to hold that the view that the answer key that this is an indemnity is not correct and therefore benefit should be given to the Petitioners who contend that it is a guarantee.

Question: A suit is dismissed wrongly on the ground of being barred by limitation. The order of dismissal would operate as res judicata and bar a subsequent suit on the same cause of action.
1. The above statement is true
2. The above statement is false
3. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
4. None of these

According to the answer key, the correct answer is (1) above, whereas according to the Petitioners, the correct answer is (2) above.

The court sided with the Petitioners by opining that question of limitation is invariably a mixed question of law and fact. If that question was intended to refer to the decision being purely on a question of law, then it should have expressed so.

Question: Where an interim injunction has been granted without notice to the opposite party and the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC:
1. The ex parte injunction lapses on the expiry of the time for compliance
2. The ex parte injunction would necessarily be liable to be vacated
3. The court can extend the time for compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC even after the Defendant has appeared and filed written statement
4. The ex parte injunction would be vacated if the non-compliance is prejudicial to the defendant.

According to the answer key, the correct answer is (4) above whereas according to the Petitioners, it is (2) above.

The court relied upon the judgment in Shiv Kumar Chadha v MCD (1993) 3 SCC 161 and went on to highlight that The question as framed simply states that there is a failure to comply with the provision of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC with no reference to whether such failure is prejudicial to the Defendant. That important fact could not have been presumed by the candidate. In that view of the matter, Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC has to apply.

Question: An order for monthly allowance for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be payable:
1. From the date of the order
2. From the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expense of proceedings
3. From the date of order, or, if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of the proceedings
4. From any date as the Magistrate may deem fit and proper

According to the answer key, the correct answer is (3) above, whereas according to the Petitioners, it is (2) above.

The court regarded the answer suggested by the Petitioner as correct by taking into consideration the judgment in Nisha Saifi v Mohd. Sahid (2019) 3 JCC 1882 which held that ordinarily maintenance should be granted from the date of the application and for valid reasons to be recorded from the date of the order.

Question: Parliament's lack of power to alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution was propounded for the first time in:
1. Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in a dissenting judgement
2. Keshavanand Bharati Vs. State of Kerala
3. I. C. Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab
4. Minerva Mills Vs. UOI

The answer key states that the correct answer is (1) above, whereas the Petitioners state that it is (2) above.

The court corrected the answer by highlighting that:

'On perusing the relevant paragraph in the judgment of Justice Mudholkar in Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCR 933 i.e. paras 56 and 56, the Court finds that reference in both these paragraphs is to the "basic features to the Constitution" and not "basic structure". It appears that that expression as such was used first in Keshvanand Bharti'

Question: For the purpose of amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC,
the commencement of trial takes place
1. When the issues are framed
2. When the affidavits in evidence are filed
3. When the affidavits in evidence are tendered by the witness
4. Once cross-examination begins

The Petitioners have claimed the correct answer to be (1). The court agreed with the Petitioners by noting that All the proceedings before that stage are treated as proceedings preliminary to trial or for making the case ready for trial.

Click here to download judgment