NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

______________________________________________________________________________

Index of authorities ……………………………………………………………………… (2)

Statement of Jurisdiction ………………………………………………………………... (3)

Statement of Issues ………………….…………………………………………………… (4)

Summary of Arguments ………………………………………………………………… (5)

Arguments Advanced …………………………………………………………………… (6)

Prayer …………………………………………………………………………………….. (9)

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDENTS 1

 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
______________________________________________________________________________

Civil Procedure Code Section 19 (3)

_____________________________________________________________________________

Notification :-

Notification No. l53, Gaz. ll/XXl.c.35 Dated ll.09.13 (3)

_____________________________________________________________________________

Cases :-

Popatlal Gokaldas Shah an Anr Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal corporation (6)

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2008(14) SSC 795 (7)

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDENTS 2

 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff humbly submits this memorandum for the plaint filed before this Honourable Court.
Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the rule of territorial jurisdiction for cases of wrongs to
person or movable. The section 19 of Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced herein below : -

“19. Suits for compensation for wrong to person or movable- Where a suit is for compensation for
wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of one Court and defendant resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the
plaintiff in either of the said Courts.” i

In the present case the plaintiff is residing in the colony No. 16 in the outskirts of Chandigarh. The
defendant is working for gain in Chandigarh. The cause of action has also arisen in Chandigarh hence as per
section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure Court of Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and
adjudicate the suit.

It is submitted that, it is a suit for a compensation of rupees fifty lakhs. This honourable court wide
notification dated 11 September 2013 issued by the honourable high court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh, thereby the honourable high court has made the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Senior Civil judge
unlimited.

As per para 1(b), “Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division): shall
exercise the jurisdiction in respect of all cases. Provided that the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), at the time of
entrustment of suits for declaration where a dispute as regards genuineness of Will has been raised, shall
broadly examine the matter and in case he is of the opinion that there is complexity in the matter then the
same shall either be tried by himself or be entrusted to the officer of the rank of Additional Civil Judge
(Sr. Divn.).” ii

_____________________________
i
Civil Procedure Code Section 19
ii
Notification No. l53, Gaz. ll/XXl.c.35 Dated ll.09.13

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDENTS 3

 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE NO. 1

Whether the plaintiff fell in the manhole due to his inebriated state?

ISSUE NO. 2

Whether there is any negligence on the part of the defendant?

ISSUE NO. 3

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if so to what extent and from which of the defendants?

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDENTS 4

 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO. 1

Yes, the plaintiff fell into the manhole due to his inebriated state. The defendant took all the

necessary precautions and it was due to the negligence on the part of the plaintiff that he fell into the

manhole.

ISSUE NO. 2

No, there was no negligence on the part of the defendant. Defendant took all the necessary care and

precaution, which a reasonable man would have taken. There was no breach of the duty of care on the part of

defendant.

ISSUE NO. 3

No, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages. Defendants have taken all the necessary measures of care

and precaution and thus owe no compensation to the plaintiff. Moreover, it was the plaintiff who was

negligent and thus is not entitled to any compensation.

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDENTS 5

 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE NO. 1

It is submitted that the plaintiff in inebriated state, negligently ignoring all the caution board and

diverging signs was walking towards the manhole and fell into it. The caution board installed by the

defendant no. 1 was explicit in cautioning the upcoming manhole and any reasonable and prudent man who

was not under intoxication would have easily noticed the manhole. But because plaintiff was in inebriated

state, whose effects include, severe confusion, unpredictable behavior, stupor, sudden lapses into sub

consciousness or unconsciousness, plaintiff could not judge the caution signs and fell into the man hole.

In the case of Popatlal Gokaldas Shah an Anr Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal corporation iii, respondent

owed a duty of care to the appellant. The appellant diving negligently injured himself and the injury

ultimately resulted in his death. Appellant approached the court of law for compensation .The swimming

pool was maintained by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. It was contended that deceased was

negligent in taking dive in the swimming pool , and therefore, the Municipal Corporation is not liable for

negligence on the part of the appellant. The Corporation had taken enough care to save the deceased. A well

trained coach was there who helped the deceased from taking out from the swimming pool. The deceased

thereafter was sent to the hospital, but ultimately the deceased died at the hospital. It was further contended

that the Corporation was not responsible or not negligent in performing the discretionary duty on their

behalf. Though the respondent had a duty of care to the appellant but due to the negligence committed by the

appellant his claim was rejected.

Similarly in this case, even though defendant no. 2 owed a duty to plaintiff but the injury suffered by

the plaintiff was due to the gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff is liable for

negligence on his own part and proper precautions were taken by the defendant to save the plaintiff also.

iii
AIR2003Guj44

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDENTS 6

 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

ISSUE NO. 2

It is submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant. The defendant no. 1

executed the work with utmost care. To caution the passerby defendant no. 1 with defendant no. 2’s

permission mounted a caution board . To divert the traffic defendants mounted diversion boards to avoid any

accident. But the plaintiff was in an inebriated state and could not judge the signs . Therefore, defendants

here are not liable of any negligence.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a landmark judgment explained the negligence; “Negligence is a

specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances

demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the fact of each particular case. It may consist in omitting

to do some thing, which ought to be done, or in doing some thing which ought to be done in a different

manner or not at all. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal

consequence, where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions

which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property The degree of

care required in a particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary according to the

amount of the risk to be encountered and to the magnitude of the prospective injury. The duty of care is owed

only to those persons who are in the area of foreseeable danger, the fact that the act of the defendant violated

his duty of care to a third person does not enable the plaintiff who is always injured by the same act to claim

unless he is also within the area of foreseeable danger. The same act or omission may accordingly in some

circumstances involve liability as being negligent although in other circumstances it will not do so. The

material considerations are the absence of care which is on the part of the defendant owed to the plaintiff in

the circumstances of the case and damage suffered by the plaintiff, together with a demonstrable relation of

cause and effect between the two.”iv So, here the duty of care owed by the defendants was sincerely fulfilled.

And hence the defendants are not liable for negligence.

iv
Kuldeep Singh V. State of himachal Pradesh 2008(14) SCC 795

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDENTS 7

 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

ISSUE NO. 3

It is submitted that the plaintiff due to his negligence fell into the manhole dug by defendant no. 1 and

suffered injuries. It is further submitted that defendants took complete care and precautions in making the

plaintiff aware of the upcoming danger by implanting caution boards . Utmost care was taken by the

defendant to caution the passerby and also he had placed visible diversion signs which any man in

uninebriated state would see clearly . So, the injury suffered by the plaintiff was the result of the sheer

negligence on his part. And the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages from any of the defendants.

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDENTS 8

 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the defendants
humbly prays that the Honorable Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:

1. Dismiss the suit with cost.

And pass any other order that this Honorable court may deem fit in the interest of justice and good
conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the plaintiff shall be duty bound forever pray.

(Counsel for Defendants)

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDENTS 9