A suit is dismissed wrongly on the ground of being barred by limitation. The order of dismissal would operate as res judicata and bar a subsequent suit on the same cause of action.

A suit is dismissed wrongly on the ground of being barred by limitation. The order of dismissal would operate as res judicata and bar a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. Correct Answer The above statement is true

Bissoy MCQ

Related Questions

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
In order for that a decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the court which may decide that suit must have been?
1. A civil court of competent jurisdiction
2. A court of exclusive jurisdiction
3. A court of concurrent jurisdiction 'competent to try the subsequent suit'
4. A court of limited jurisdiction competent to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit
A files a suit for declaration that he is entitled to certain land as the heir of C. The suit is dismissed. Subsequently suit is claimed on the basis of adverse possession; subsequent suit is barred on the ground of
In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?
"If the writ petition under Article 226 in a High Court is dismissed on the merits (i.e. dismissed in limine); but because of laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then dismissal of writ petition (under Article 226) would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32." This principle was laid down by Supreme Court in:
A decree in a suit against certain members of a sect alleged to be wrongdoers in their individual capacity cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit against the other members of the sect. The wrong complained of in the former suit was that the defendants carried an idol in procession through certain streets and that such processions were in violation of plaintiff's rights.
A' files a Suit for Mandatory Injunction against illegal disconnection of electricity. 'A' also suffers loss in the business on account of non supply of electricity. The suit for Mandatory Injunction is dismissed. 'A' thereafter files suit for damages for suffering loss. The subsequent Suit is barred
A suit was filed and disposed off by a Court which had no territorial jurisdiction to try it. That judgement and decree became final. Whether the findings recorded in it operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties.
That a petition dismissed under Article 226 would operate as res judicata so as to bar a similar petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution was held in the case of;
In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is