Maharashtra Civil Judge (JD) & JMFC common mistakes
Maharashtra Civil Judge (JD) & JMFC · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering a jurisdiction question by quoting Section 9 CPC and then concluding the suit 'lies' without checking pecuniary jurisdiction, Section 15 CPC (suit where defendant resides/works/cause of action arises for immovables) and the bar in Section 16 CPC for suits affecting immovable property.
Section 9 is the first provision recalled during exam pressure, and candidates memorise it as a standalone answer. The three-part jurisdiction test (subject matter, pecuniary, territorial) is not mentally rehearsed as a checklist, so the later limbs get skipped once a definitive answer has already been written.
What to do instead
Before writing any jurisdiction answer, physically write the three headings on the rough sheet and put one line under each. Then add the override sentence: Section 16 CPC excludes Sections 15 and 20 where the suit concerns declaration of title, partition or possession of immovable property.
Stating that default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC becomes available after 60 days in every case, and that it survives once the charge-sheet is filed late, without distinguishing offences punishable with death/life imprisonment/imprisonment of 10 years or more (90 days) from other offences.
Coaching notes and case law head-notes compress the section into '60/90 days', and candidates read only the 60-day figure. The distinction between the two categories in the proviso is easy to forget because it is buried in the middle of a long provision.
What to do instead
Memorise the section as a two-row table: 90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of 10 years or more; 60 days for all others. Add the follow-on rule: the right is indefeasible, but it is lost once the charge-sheet is filed before the application is heard.
Writing that a dying declaration must be corroborated and must be recorded in question-and-answer form before it can be acted upon.
Candidates remember the old cautionary line 'a dying declaration is a weak piece of evidence' from commentary and convert it into a legal requirement. The actual rule - that a truthful, voluntary declaration, once held reliable, can be the sole basis of conviction - is stated in cases but is less quotable.
What to do instead
Frame the answer as: the requirement is that the court must scrutinise the declarant's mental fitness, voluntariness and completeness; corroboration is not a rule of law but only a rule of prudence. Explicitly state that a declaration recorded in narrative form is not invalid merely because it is not in question-and-answer form.
Treating grave and sudden provocation (Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC) as a complete defence resulting in acquittal rather than as a partial defence reducing the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The exception list under Section 300 is learned as a set of 'defences', and candidates carry over the acquittal framing used for general exceptions under Sections 76 to 106. The distinction between the two exception schemes is not drawn explicitly during revision.
What to do instead
Before answering any murder problem, write two columns: 'general exceptions - effect is no offence' and 'exceptions to Section 300 - effect is Section 299 not Section 300'. Place provocation, private defence excess and sudden fight in the second column and frame the conclusion as 'punishable under Section 304 Part I/II'.
Applying Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (daughter as coparcener by birth) to a Christian or Parsi family, or to a Hindu Mitakshara family governed by a pre-2005 partition that was registered, without flagging the applicability checkpoint.
The 2005 amendment is heavily tested and over-rehearsed, so candidates insert it whenever a daughter's share is mentioned. The threshold question - which personal law governs the parties in the fact pattern - is skipped because the 'interesting' amendment is spotted first.
What to do instead
Start every succession answer with a one-line governing-law sentence identifying the community, testamentary or intestate status, and the applicable statute before touching shares. Then state whether the 2005 amendment applies by reference to the date of death and any earlier registered partition.
Invoking Article 32 against a private employer or private educational institution for service-related or admission-related grievances, or seeking mandamus against a private body without showing it discharges a public duty.
Article 32 is taught as the flagship fundamental rights remedy, and candidates associate every fundamental rights breach with the Supreme Court. The 'State' requirement under Article 12 and the public-duty test are remembered as theory but not applied to the fact pattern.
What to do instead
Add a written checkpoint: 'Who is the respondent and is it State under Article 12?' If it is a private body, route the answer through Article 226 with a public-duty argument, or through the ordinary civil court. Say expressly that Article 32 is not available against a purely private body.
Applying the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to premises whose monthly rent exceeds the statutory ceiling (as in the pre-1999 position), or citing the 1947 Act as operative, without noting the exemption for premises where monthly rent or rateable value exceeds Rs 3,500 in the larger notified areas and Rs 1,000 in other areas.
Older study material and bare-act annotations often retain the repealed 1947 Act's framing, and candidates revise rent control from those notes. The 1999 Act's threshold exemption in Section 3 is a specific numerical fact that is easy to miss.
What to do instead
Build a one-page chart of Section 3 exemptions with the two money ceilings and the areas to which they apply. State the governing Act and the exemption finding as the first line of every rent-control answer, before discussing the tenant's rights.
Conflating strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher with absolute liability, and asserting absolute liability (no exceptions) for all hazardous-activity cases regardless of whether the entrant was a trespasser or the escape was caused by an act of God or a third party.
The two rules are taught together and the exam-friendly phrase 'absolute liability has no exceptions' is easier to recall than the limited list of defences available under strict liability. The distinction is therefore collapsed under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Keep a two-column table: Rylands - exceptions of act of God, act of a stranger, consent, statutory authority, default of the plaintiff; absolute liability - none of these but limited to enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. Write the applicable category in the margin before drafting.
In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act problem, treating the cause of action as arising on the date the cheque was dishonoured, and computing the 30-day complaint period from there rather than from the expiry of the 15-day notice period.
The sequence of dates - presentation, dishonour memo, notice, 15-day demand period, 30-day complaint window - is learnt as a list, and under time pressure candidates anchor on the first dramatic event (dishonour). The statutory trigger in Section 142(1)(b) is less memorable.
What to do instead
Draw a timeline bar with five marked points and write the section beside each. Fix the trigger sentence in memory: the cause of action arises on the expiry of 15 days from receipt of notice, and the complaint must be filed within one month thereafter.
Writing a judgment without framing issues, or drafting a single document that mixes plaint and written statement material (admitting facts while also leading evidence), and answering ethics questions to the effect that an advocate may accept a brief from both sides in the same dispute.
Judgment writing and pleading drafting are revised least because they feel like practice skills rather than examinable content. Professional ethics is revised as a list of duties without the specific conflict-of-interest rule under the Advocates Act and Bar Council rules.
What to do instead
Use fixed skeletons. Judgment: facts, issues, evidence, findings on each issue, final order. Plaint: parties, jurisdiction, cause of action, valuation, relief. Written statement: preliminary objections, para-wise reply, additional pleas. For ethics, memorise the short rule - an advocate cannot appear for both sides in the same matter or accept a brief where a conflict exists.