Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
Q 1. Mr. X filed a civil suit for recovery of money against Mr. Y. Due to the non-appearance of both parties, the suit was dismissed under Order IX Rule 2 CPC. Mr. X then filed an application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC for restoration, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, Mr. X filed a fresh suit for the same recovery. Mr. Y contends that the fresh suit is barred by res judicata. Decide.A....
Q 1. Mr. X filed a civil suit for recovery of money against Mr. Y. Due to the non-appearance of both parties, the suit was dismissed under Order IX Rule 2 CPC. Mr. X then filed an application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC for restoration, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, Mr. X filed a fresh suit for the same recovery. Mr. Y contends that the fresh suit is barred by res judicata. Decide.
A. The fresh suit is barred as the restoration application was dismissed.
B. The fresh suit is maintainable because dismissal under Order IX Rule 2 is not a decree.
C. The fresh suit can only be filed if the court grants special permission.
D. The fresh suit is barred as it violates Section 11 CPC.
Correct Answer: B
Case Title: AMRUDDIN ANSARI (DEAD)THROUGH LRS & ORS. VERSUS AFAJAL ALI & ORS.
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that dismissal under Order IX Rule 2/3 CPC (for non-appearance) is not an adjudication on merits and does not constitute a "decree" under Section 2(2) CPC. Thus, res judicata (Section 11) does not apply.
Dismissal Of Suit For Default Doesn't Bar Fresh Suit On Same Cause Of Action : Supreme Court
Q 2. X files a suit seeking a declaration of title over a property, claiming ownership through a valid Gift Deed executed in his favor. However, Y (a third party) had earlier obtained a Sale Deed for the same property from Z (the original owner). X does not seek cancellation of Y's Sale Deed in his suit. The Trial Court declares X as the rightful owner and holds Y's Sale Deed as void. On appeal, the High Court dismisses X's suit, reasoning that X must seek cancellation of Y's Sale Deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and failure to do so bars his claim. Decide.
A. The High Court is correct, X must seek cancellation of Y's Sale Deed, as a declaration of title is insufficient.
B. The High Court is wrong, X, not being a party to Y's Sale Deed, need only seek a declaration of title, and the Sale Deed is automatically void if X's title is proved.
C. X must first sue Y for cancellation of the Sale Deed before seeking a declaration of title.
D. The suit is barred by limitation as X failed to challenge the Sale Deed within three years.
Correct Answer: B
Case Title: HUSSAIN AHMED CHOUDHURY & ORS. Versus HABIBUR RAHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRs & ORS.
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that a plaintiff seeking a declaration of title over a property is not required to specifically seek the cancellation of a sale deed executed by another party over the same property as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”).
Q 3. In 2010, A executes a Sale Deed in favor of B over a disputed property. In 2015, C (the original owner's heir) files a composite suit seeking cancellation of the 2010 Sale Deed (claiming it was fraudulent), and recovery of possession of the property from B. The Trial Court dismisses the suit in 2023, holding it is barred by limitation because the 3-year limitation period under Article 59 (for cancellation) expired in 2013. C appeals, arguing that the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 (for possession based on title) applies since recovery of possession was also sought. Decide.
A. The suit is time-barred because the primary relief is cancellation (3-year limit under Article 59), and the clock started in 2010 when the Sale Deed was executed.
B. The suit is within limitation because the main relief is recovery of possession (12-year limit under Article 65), and the clock started when C's possession was disturbed.
C. The limitation period is 12 years because cancellation and possession are independent reliefs, and the later date governs.
D. The suit is barred because C should have filed two separate suits for cancellation and possession.
Correct Answer: A
Case Title: RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS. VERSUS PRASHANT GARG & ORS.
Explanation: The Supreme Court has reiterated that where a composite suit had been filed for cancellation of the sale deed and of possession, the limitation period would have to be adjudged from the primary relief of cancellation which is 3 (three) years, and not the ancillary relief of possession which is 12 (twelve) years.
Q 4. In 2015, Plaintiff 'A' sued Defendant 'B' for declaration of title and possession. Though both parties argued limitation, the Trial Court, without framing a specific issue, dismissed the suit as time-barred in 2018, finding the right to sue arose in 2005. The First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal. In 2025, however, the High Court remanded the case, noting the absence of a specific issue on limitation despite full arguments. Decide.
A. The High Court was correct – A specific issue on limitation must be framed, and failure to do so vitiates the entire proceeding.
B. The Trial Court's dismissal was valid – Courts can decide on limitation even without a framed issue if parties have argued the point and evidence exists.
C. Only the First Appellate Court can consider limitation if the Trial Court omitted it.
D. The suit must be reinstated – Limitation is a procedural defect that cannot defeat a valid claim.
Correct Answer: B
Case Title: R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. AND ANOTHER VERSUS RAJMANI AND OTHERS
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that a Court can dismiss a suit as time-barred, even if no specific issue regarding limitation was framed. This is because of the mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, as per which a Court must dismiss any suit, appeal, or application that is time-barred, even if the defendant has not specifically raised the issue in the pleadings.
Q 5. In a suit for eviction, the defendant admitted certain crucial facts in his written statement that undermined his own defense. Relying on these admissions, the plaintiff applied for a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which was decreed in his favor. Decide.
A) A judgment on admission can be passed only if the admission is made strictly in the pleadings and only after an application is filed by the plaintiff.
B) Admissions made outside the pleadings are inadmissible for the purpose of passing a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
C) A judgment on admission can be passed at any stage based on oral or written admissions, even dehors the pleadings, and the court can pass such a judgment suo motu.
D) A judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC cannot be passed unless the defendant expressly consents to it.
Correct Answer: C
Case Title : Rajiv Ghosh Versus Satya Naryan Jaiswal
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently clarified the legal position under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), holding that a 'judgment on admission' may be delivered at any stage of the suit, relying on oral or written admissions even those made outside the pleadings and without the need for a separate application to invoke the provision.
XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment On Admission Can Be Passed Even Dehors Pleadings : Supreme Court
Q 6. Plaintiff files a suit in a civil court on 21st November 2017 seeking a declaration that his late father's Will and Codicil are fraudulent and void. According to his own pleadings, he first came to know about the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014. The defendant applies for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, arguing that the suit is barred by limitation. Decide.
A) The suit is within limitation because the plaintiff had not acquired full knowledge of the fraud until later, and limitation should run from full knowledge.
B) The limitation period begins only after the plaintiff conducts a complete investigation into the documents and discovers evidence of fraud.
C) Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law; hence, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC without trial.
D) The suit is barred by limitation because limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act starts when the cause of action first arises, i.e., when the plaintiff first knows of the Will and Codicil, and not when he gains full knowledge.
Correct Answer: D
Case Title: NIKHILA DIVYANG MEHTA & ANR. VERSUS HITESH P. SANGHVI & ORS.
Explanation: The Court said that the limitation starts to run from the date of knowledge of the first cause of action, and not when the plaintiff becomes fully aware of the cause of action.
Q 7. During the Mid-trial in the NDPS case, X filed an application under Section 216 CrPC, arguing that no evidence existed for the NDPS charge. The Trial Court deleted the NDPS charge (keeping only the Drugs Act charge) and transferred the case to a Magistrate. The High Court upheld this. The prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court. Decide whether Section 216 CrPC allowed the deletion of the charge.
A) After framing charges under Section 228 CrPC, the Trial Court has the power to delete charges at any time under Section 216 CrPC if the evidence appears weak.
B) Section 216 CrPC empowers the Trial Court to only add or alter charges, not to delete them; once charges are framed, the trial must end with either conviction or acquittal on those charges.
C) The Trial Court can discharge an accused at any stage after framing charges by invoking Section 216 CrPC if it believes the trial would be futile.
D) The High Court can suo moto delete charges framed by the Trial Court under Section 216 CrPC in the interest of justice.
Correct Answer: B
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS.
Explanation: The Supreme Court today (April 17) held that the power under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) cannot be invoked to delete charges already framed against an accused, as it can only be used to add or alter the existing charges.
Charges Framed Cannot Be Deleted Invoking S.216 CrPC/S.239 BNSS : Supreme Court
Q 8. Adavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. entered an LLP agreement with Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.1), appointing Respondent No.3 as CEO of the LLP (Respondent No.2). Disputes later arose, and Adavya issued a Section 21 notice and filed a Section 11 application only against Respondent No.1. After an arbitrator was appointed, Adavya sought to implead Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who objected, citing lack of Section 21 notice and non-involvement in the Section 11 application. Decide.
A. Failure to serve a Section 21 notice or to implead a party in a Section 11 application completely bars that party from being made a party to arbitral proceedings.
B. An arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction over a party depends solely on whether the court referred them in the Section 11 order.
C. The arbitral tribunal has the power to implead parties during the arbitral proceedings if they are parties to the arbitration agreement, even if they were not served a Section 21 notice or impleaded in the Section 11 application.
D. Issuance of a Section 21 notice is irrelevant to the commencement of arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Correct Answer: C
Case Title: ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently observed that not being served with the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and not being made a party in the Section 11 application (for appointment of arbitrator), are not sufficient grounds to hold that a person cannot be made party to arbitral proceedings.
Q 9. Buyer filed a suit for the specific performance of an agreement to sell, which had been cancelled by the seller. However, the buyer did not seek a declaratory relief challenging the validity of the cancellation of the agreement. The Trial Court and High Court ruled in favor of the buyer. The seller appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the suit for specific performance was not maintainable without a declaratory relief challenging the cancellation. Decide.
a) The suit for specific performance is maintainable as the buyer has already encashed the demand drafts.
b) The suit for specific performance is not maintainable as the buyer did not seek declaratory relief challenging the cancellation of the agreement.
c) The suit for specific performance is maintainable as the seller's cancellation was not legally binding.
d) The suit for specific performance is maintainable only if the buyer provides new evidence regarding the cancellation.
Correct Answer: B
Case Title: SANGITA SINHA VERSUS BHAWANA BHARDWAJ AND ORS.
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a suit for the specific performance of an agreement to sell, filed after its cancellation, is not maintainable unless it includes a prayer for declaratory relief (under Section 34 Specific Relief Act) challenging the validity of the cancellation. The Court reasoned that declaratory relief challenging the validity of the cancellation was essential when seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell, as the suit could not be sustained without a valid and subsisting agreement.
Q 10. The Patna High Court, while exercising its suo motu powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, struck down the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014, which allowed a retiring chowkidar to nominate a dependent kin for appointment in his place. No formal challenge was made against the validity of the Rule, yet the High Court struck it down as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. Decide.
a) The High Court was justified in exercising suo motu powers to strike down the subordinate legislation as it egregiously violated fundamental rights and binding Supreme Court precedents.
b) The High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction because subordinate legislation can only be struck down when formally challenged by an aggrieved party.
c) The High Court's decision was invalid because subordinate legislation enjoys the same presumption of constitutionality as primary legislation and cannot be struck down suo motu.
d) The High Court could not declare the legislation unconstitutional without first issuing a notice to the State and conducting a detailed trial.
Correct Answer: A
Case Title: BIHAR RAJYA DAFADAR CHAUKIDAR PANCHAYAT (MAGADH DIVISION) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently held that Writ Courts have the authority to exercise suo motu powers to strike down subordinate legislation if it violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, rendering it void and unconstitutional. The Court observed that it saw no reason to not concede the power to suo motu declare a subordinate legislation invalid, on the ground of its being manifestly contrary to a Fundamental Right within the vast reserve of powers of the Constitutional Courts.