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

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday passed a judgment wherein 9 out of the 15 corrections pointed out in the answer-key of the Delhi Judicial Services Exam have been accepted by the 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 decree1. Operates as the res-judicata between the parties to the compromise2. Does not operate as res-judicata3. (1) or (2) depending on the circumstances of each case4. (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. Guarantee2. Bailment3. Indemnity4. 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 true2. The above statement is false3. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case4. 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 compliance2. The ex parte injunction would necessarily be liable to be vacated3. The court can extend the time for compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC even after the Defendant has appeared and ...

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

Karan Tripathi

Tags