WBJS Civil Judge Exam common mistakes
WBJS Civil Judge Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a criminal fact pattern raises private defence or grave and sudden provocation, the candidate writes that the prosecution has failed because it did not disprove the exception, and never identifies the evidence the accused must lead.
General exceptions are studied as definitions attached to offences, so candidates carry over the prosecution's overall burden and miss the separate burden on the accused.
What to do instead
Use a two-stage checklist: first identify the foundational facts that bring the exception into play; then state that the accused must prove the exception on a preponderance of probability under s.105 of the Indian Evidence Act or its Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam counterpart; only then discuss the prosecution's rebuttal. Draft three short answers using this sequence.
Cites IPC, CrPC or Evidence Act section numbers in an answer governed by the BNS, BNSS or BSA, or cites BNS numbers for an event before 1 July 2024.
Most notes and guides are still keyed to the old codes; candidates memorise old numbers first and add the new ones late.
What to do instead
Keep a one-page conversion table for the sections you actually use; in every answer write the current provision first and the old equivalent in brackets; for transitional problems state the offence date and apply the law in force on that date. Test yourself on 20 conversions.
Answers a CPC question by invoking s.115 revision against an appealable order, or by filing a writ petition against an interlocutory order that could be challenged in appeal.
Revision, appeal and writ are all correction remedies; candidates memorise them as interchangeable rather than as a hierarchy.
What to do instead
Before choosing a remedy, run a three-question screen: Is the order appealable? Has the case been decided? Does the order affect a public law duty? Then state why the chosen route satisfies each condition. Practise drafting the jurisdictional paragraph.
In a limitation problem, computes time from the date of breach or the date of the document instead of the date the cause of action accrued, and applies s.5 Limitation Act condonation to a suit.
Limitation is revised as a table of periods; the accrual rule and the suit/application distinction are treated as afterthoughts.
What to do instead
Write the cause of action in one sentence before choosing the article; identify the starting date from that sentence; then check whether s.5 applies (applications, not suits) and whether s.14 exclusion is available. Build a table of the ten most-used articles with their accrual points.
Says an unregistered sale deed of immovable property is inadmissible and cannot be looked at even to prove possession or part performance, or values a suit for court fee on the figure stated in the plaint without applying the market-value rule.
Registration and evidence provisions are read together as a blanket bar; court-fee valuation is treated as arithmetic rather than a statutory test.
What to do instead
Separate the questions: Is registration compulsory? If yes, s.49 bars use as evidence of the transaction, but collateral use may be allowed, so plead the collateral purpose. For court fee, identify the valuation section, state the basis (market value, consideration or annual value), and show the calculation.
Drafts a writ petition against a private employer or a pure contractual dispute without pleading a public law element, and does not address an available statutory alternative remedy.
Candidates equate writ jurisdiction with general equity and forget that Article 226 is not a substitute for a civil suit.
What to do instead
Before drafting, write one paragraph on the public law duty or statutory violation; if none exists, choose a civil suit. If an alternative remedy exists, plead why it is inadequate or why the order is without jurisdiction. Include a short maintainability section in every writ answer.
In a s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act problem, computes the 30-day notice period from the cheque date and the 15-day payment period from the notice date rather than from receipt, and ignores the one-month complaint window.
The provision is remembered as a chain of numbers without the trigger event for each period.
What to do instead
Draw a timeline with four dates: cheque presentation, dishonour memo receipt, notice receipt, and cause of action. Mark 30 days from receipt of dishonour information, 15 days from notice receipt, and one month from the cause of action. Then discuss condonation of delay separately.
In a Hindu succession problem, makes a daughter's coparcenary right depend on the father's death after 2005 even where the father was alive on 9 September 2005; in a Muslim inheritance problem, distributes the estate without first deducting funeral expenses, debts and a valid will up to one-third.
The 2005 amendment and later case law are compressed into a single cut-off date; Muslim inheritance is studied as fixed fractions without the preliminary deductions.
What to do instead
State the governing rule before applying it: a daughter is a coparcener by birth, and the operative question is whether the father was alive on 9 September 2005; for Muslim succession, follow the sequence of funeral expenses, debts, will up to one-third, then shares. Work through two dated family trees.
Challenges an arbitral award under s.34 beyond three months and seeks condonation under s.5 of the Limitation Act, or argues that the award is wrong on merits.
Section 34 is treated like an appeal; its special limitation and narrow grounds are not separated.
What to do instead
Memorise the s.34(3) structure: three months from receipt of the award, plus up to 30 days on sufficient cause, not s.5; and the grounds are confined to the specified categories. In practice answers, label each ground and show why it falls within the section, not merely that the arbitrator erred.
In the language paper, produces a precis that copies whole sentences and exceeds the word limit, or translates a legal passage into heavily Sanskritised prose rather than the register of the original.
The language paper is treated as a formality and practised without a clock; candidates equate formal vocabulary with good translation.
What to do instead
Practise three 100-word precis drafts under timed conditions, counting words and rewriting in your own words; for translation, use the same register as the source and keep legal terms consistent. Maintain an error log of grammar and spelling.