Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

In execution proceeding before Trial Court a person filed application under Order 21 Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure on ground that he was bona fide purchaser of suit property. His objection

In execution proceeding before Trial Court a person filed application under Order 21 Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure on ground that he was bona fide purchaser of suit property. His objection Correct Answer Is not maintainable because his lis pendens prohibits a party from dealing with property which is the subject matter of suit

Related Questions

Which of the following statements are correct in the context of Section 5 of Code of Civil Procedure?
1. Revenue Court is a part of Civil Court
2. Civil Court. means courts having original jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure but not Revenue Court
3. Civil Court means courts having original jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure including Revenue Court
4. Revenue Court is not a part of Civil Court
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
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
Which of the following instances of order are decrees?
1. An order rejecting an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis for no suit has till then been filed
2. An order refusing leave to institute for accounts of religious endowment
3. An order under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 dismissing an application for the removal of trustee
4. An order on a settlement case under section 104 (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act 3 of 1898 as the proceeding is instituted not by a plaint but by an application
5. An order made on an application to the District Court under section 84 (2) of the Madras Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927
Existence of two suits, by parties litigating under same title, one previously instituted which is pending at present and the other filed later, wherein a matter in issue in the subsequently filed suit is directly and substantially in issue in the other and the relief claimed in the subsequent suit can effectively, be passed by the court of previous instance. Which section of Code of Civil Procedure decides the fate of the subsequently filed suit and its proceeding?
A civil suit was repeatedly fixed by the trial court for examination of the defendant's witnesses but the said opportunity was not availed by the defendant, therefore on 18th November 2016 when neither the defendant nor his counsel had appeared, the trial court had proceeded ex parte and heard the final arguments and reserved the case for judgement. On 28th November 2016 the defendant had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is
X' files a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against 'Y' and files an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, The Court dismisses the application for temporary injunction. 2 months later, during the pendency of the suit, X again files for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, citing new facts and changed circumstances.
A suit was instituted impleading the defendants in a representative capacity. Publication of the notice of the suit was made in a leading daily as directed by Court while granting permission under Order I, Rule 8. Later on the suit happened to be dismissed for default. Plaintiff filed application under Order IX, Rule 9 to restore the suit. Is it necessary to direct publication of the notice regarding the restoration application also in a leading daily to have effective service on all the persons interested?
When a suit is dismissed under Order IX, Rule 2 or under Order IX, Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, a fresh suit under Order IX, Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, the same cause of action is
Which of the following combinations are correctly matched?
1. Temporary ⇔ Order 39 Code of Civil Procedure injunction
2. Suit by Indigent ⇔ Order 33 Code of Civil Procedure person
3. Powers of Appellate ⇔ Section 102 Code of Civil Procedure Hate Court
4. Right to file ⇔ Section 148A Code of Civil Procedure caveat
Select correct answer: