CPC AND LAW OF LIMITATION

CA – 2 [01.10.2020]
Maximum Marks: 15
Instructions:
1. All questions are compulsory.
2. Each Question carries equal marks.
3. Send copy of your answer-script to email ids: online3ug04@nlujodhpur.ac.in and
onlinebackup3@nlujodhpur.ac.in

QUESTION 1
Elucidate the doctrine of res sub judice under the code of civil procedure.

QUESTION 2
Mr. Guddu and Mr. Bablu are agents of Mr. Akhandanand Tripathi. Amid other businesses
that he owns, Mr. Tripathi is the carpet tycoon of Mirzapur. Guddu and Bablu have undertook
the agency to supply carpets to different parts of Mirzapur and collect payments for the
supplies in Mr. Tripathi’s behalf on a commission of two per cent. As per the agreement,
Bablu and Guddu are supposed to handover the money to Akhandanand on 20 th of every
month.
Munna Tripathi, son of Akhandanand Tripathi, doubted that Bablu is swindling with the
accounts and thereby is maliciously taking more commission than he legitimately could. On
16th of November 2018, Munna (as the prospective successor of Akhandanand’s businesses)
approached Bablu and asked for payment of money that has been collected by them in
previous month from the carpet supply.
Aggrieved by this, Bablu and Guddu decided to approach the civil court of Mirzapur u/s 88
of CPC to determine whom should they be paying the monies to.
Assuming that you are the court, decide the outcome of the paint presented before you
[justify your answer with provisions, case laws and/or illustrations].

* Clarification: A person does not get any rights over property in present merely because of
his possibility of becoming the successor.