1 Writ Petition No.21874/2013 Writ petition No.21969/2013 07.01.2014 Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri V.S.Shroti, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate for the respondents.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is essentially in the context of questions no.19, 20, 32, 45 and 72 of the question paper.
According to the petitioners the model answer in respect of question no.19 was “no inherent jurisdiction”.
However, according to the petitioners the correct answer ought to be “no territorial jurisdiction”.
To examine the correctness of this submission we deem it appropriate to advert to question no.19 which reads thus :- “19.
Under C.P.C.a plaint can be rejected; where the suit is instituted in a Court having __ ”.
Four options have been given against this question, viz.
i) no inherent jurisdiction, ii) no pecuniary jurisdiction, iii) no territorial jurisdiction, and iv) all of the above.
The grievance of the petitioneRs.in our opinion, is completely misplaced.
No territorial jurisdiction of the court cannot be the basis to reject the plaint.
In that case the appropriate order to be passed by the concerned Court is to return the plaint to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
The model answer “no inherent jurisdiction”, therefore, is the correct answer.
Reverting to question no.20, according to the petitioneRs.the correct answer is “it is enforceable by law” as provided in section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act.
The said question reads as under :- “20.
Under Indian Contract Act, when does an agreement becomes a contract ?.” 2 Writ Petition No.21874/2013 Writ petition No.21969/2013 Four options have been provided against that question; viz.
i) it is enforceable by law, ii) it is between parties competent to contract, iii) it is by the free consent of parties, and iv) all of the above.
We have no hesitation in taking the view that “all of the above”, which is the model answer, is the correct answer.
The fact that section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act refers to the contract being enforceable by law does not necessarily mean that the other two factors referred to against question no.20 are not applicable.
Even those factors are valid requirements to constitute a legally enforceable contract.
Hence, even this submission of the petitioners does not commend to us.
The next question, according to the petitioneRs.the correct answer ought to be option no.3 namely “”when tenant has not filed his written submission within prescribed time”.
The model answer, however, is “on non-payment of amount as per section 13”.
Question no.32 reads thus :- “32.
Under M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961, when the defence against eviction of the tenant can be struck out?.” We have no hesitation in taking a view that the model answer is the correct option.
The option preferred by the petitioners of “non-filing of written submission” cannot be the basis to struck off the defence of the tenant as envisaged by the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
That order is amenable to the provisions of C.P.C.and not the Act of 1961 as such.
Therefore, even this submission is of no avail to the petitioneRs.The next grievance is in respect of model answer provided against question no.45.
According to the petitioners the correct answer ought to be “”occupancy tenant” in view of the definition of ‘occupancy tenant’ stipulated in section 185 of the M.P.Land 3 Writ Petition No.21874/2013 Writ petition No.21969/2013 Revenue Code, 1959.
Even this submission is devoid of merits.
Question No.45 reads as follows :- “45.
A person who, at the time of coming into force of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959, held a land as a pattedar tenant in the Vindhya Pradesh region, shall be called - ”.
Four options have been provided, one of the option which is the model answer given is “Bhumiswami”.
That is with reference to section 158(d)(i) of the Code of 1959.
Section 185 on which reliance has been placed deals with the ‘occupancy tenant’ and is in respect of a sub tenant of a pachpan paintalis tenant and sub tenant of Pattedar and not Pattedar as such.
In this view of the matter even this submission is founded on misinterpretation of the provisions in question.
That takes us to question no.72.
According to the petitioneRs.the correct answer ought to be “3 months” whereas the model answer is “6 months or within the period of its validity”.
This submission is founded on some Reserve Bank of India circular dated 1.4.2012; whereas question no.72 is founded on section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which plainly provides that the dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in the account can be the cause for criminal action provided the cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
This being the statutory provision, will prevail.
The circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners cannot be the basis to accept the stand that the three months period is the specified period under the Act of 1881.
In the circumstances, even this contention does not merit any consideration.
4 Writ Petition No.21874/2013 Writ petition No.21969/2013 Counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the previous examination the model answer to the same question was “3 months”.
For the reasons already recorded, the argument will have to be negatived.
Moreover, error committed in the previous examination cannot be the basis for the petitioners to succeed in this petition, more so, when the model answer is dependent on the statutory provisions in the Act of 1881.
As no other plea is taken before us, we have no hesitation in rejecting these petitions.
The same are dismissed.
(A.M.Khanwilkar) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Chief Justice Judge HS