Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Assertion (A): Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 empowers the Court to admit a suit after the prescribed period if the plaintiff satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not instituting the suit.
Reason (R): Even an appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period.

Assertion (A): Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 empowers the Court to admit a suit after the prescribed period if the plaintiff satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not instituting the suit.
Reason (R): Even an appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. Correct Answer (A) is false but (R) is true

Assertion (A) is false because it inaccurately states that Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers the court to admit a suit after the prescribed period. In reality, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides the court with the discretion to admit appeals, applications, or petitions after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown. However, it does not specifically pertain to suits. The assertion incorrectly broadens the scope of Section 5.

Reason (R) is true. The reason correctly explains the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the admission of appeals, applications, or petitions after the prescribed period if sufficient cause for the delay is demonstrated. This principle applies to appeals and other proceedings.

Given this interpretation, if most people are saying Option D, then Option D: (A) is false but (R) is true would be considered the correct answer based on the information provided.

Related Questions

Assertion (A): Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit appeal or application a period of limitation different from period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the schedule.
Reason (R): Where a Special Law prescribes a period of limitation for filing appeal but there is no provision therefore under Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation provided under the Special Law must be treated to be different from that under the Limitation Act.
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
Rule: Courts are under an obligation to inform the parties where an appeal lies. A lower court judge pronounced a judgment after hearing lengthy arguments from plaintiff's and defendant's advocates. He did not inform the parties about the period of limitation for filing an appeal under latest amendment. The plaintiff failed to appeal on time and requested the higher court for condonation of delay on the ground that the lower court judge failed to fulfil his obligation as he was not informed about the appeal. Will the higher court consider this ground as sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
The present Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to all applications other than those under any of the provision of XXI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, if the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceedings, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which from the defect of jurisdiction is unable to entertain it. Exclusion of such period has been laid down in section . . . . . . . . . of the Limitation Act, 1963.
What will be the limitation period for instituting a suit for which no specific period of limitation is provided under Limitation Act, 1963?
What will be limitation period for instituting a suit for which no specific period of limitation is provided under Limitation Act, 1963?
Which of the following statements is/are correct?
1. Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, the appellant can make a legal representation in person.
2. The appellant can authorize one or more legal practitioners to present his case before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal.
3. The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to an appeal before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal.
4. The Cyber Appellate Tribunal is bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Select the correct answer using the give below:-
Which of the following instances can be held to be final orders?
1. An order of a High Court dismissing an appeal for the appellant's failure to furnish order
2. An order that an appeal had abated
3. An order in a revision reversing the dismissal of a suit and restoring it to the file of the lower court when such an order had the effect of reinstating a primary decree
4. An order refusing an application under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act 1 of 1877
5. An order passed by a High Court in insolvency proceedings