'A' has within the prescribed period of limitation sued 'B' for recovery of debt owed by 'B' to 'A' The suit remains pending. After nine years of institution of suit 'A' assigns the debt for recovery of which the suit was filed to 'C'. 'C' after nearly one year of such assignment, applies in the suit for substitution in place of 'A':

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.

A

Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is correct explanation of (A)

B

Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not correct explanation of (A)

C

(A) is true but (R) is false

D

(A) is false but (R) is true

Which one of the following is the correct sequence of various stages of operating cycle of a manufacturing company? 1. Raw material conversion period, work-in-progress conversion period, Finished goods conversion period, Receivables conversion period 2. Raw material conversion period, work-in-progress conversion period, Creditors payment period, Receivables conversion period 3. Creditor payment period. Raw material conversion period, Receivables conversion period, work-in- progress conversion period 4. Raw material conversion period, Finished goods conversion period, work-in- progress conversion period. Receivables conversion period

A

1

B

2

C

3

D

4

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.

A

Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is correct explanation of (A)

B

Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not correct explanation of (A)

C

(A) is true but (R) is false

D

(A) is false but (R) is true

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

A

Liable to be excluded on the ground that the plaintiff was prosecuting the earlier suit with due diligence and in good faith

B

Not liable to be excluded as the plaintiff cannot be said to be prosecuting the earlier suit with due diligence and in good faith

C

Liable to be excluded under section 14(3) of Limitation Act

D

To be excluded or not to be excluded is in the discretion of the court

In a suit for partition, a Memorandum of Family Settlement is filed and on this basis the partition suit is decreed, but even after disposal of the suit the original Memorandum of Family Settlement remains in the file of the partition suit, then in such situation whether in a suit for eviction by one of the original co-owner of a tenant of a shop of the joint property which has fallen to the share of that co-owner as per the decree passed on the Memorandum of Family Settlement, can the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement be filed and proved as a public document in the suit against the tenant?

A

No, it cannot be because the original Memorandum of Family Settlement document which exists in the suit for partition which is disposed of, is a private document and not public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act

B

Yes, if a certified copy is obtained of the Memorandum of Family Settlement, and filed in the suit against the tenant, as the certified copy being issued by a court, is a public document

C

Yes, certified copy obtained from a court of the Memorandum of Family Settlement will be a public document provided that the suit was filed and disposed of by a High Court and not the District Court

D

Yes provided the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement is sought to be proved by the executants of the memorandum of settlement

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

Section 9

B

Section 10

C

Section 11

D

Section 12

In which of the following case, the court has held that limitation period as provided in the Limitation Act, 1963 would extend seven years by virtue of Section 39 of the Limitation Act, since a period of 30 years. Thus making Limitation period for redemption of Mortgage as 37 years

A

Santa Singh v. Prakash Singh

B

Purshottam v. Sagaji

C

M. P. Ahmad v. Kutheravattam Estate Receiver

D

All the above cases

Which of the following is/are false about Dishonour of Cheque?
1. Section 138 defines Dishonour of cheque in terms of issues such as insufficiency of funds in the account.
2. Such cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of twelve months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
3. Imprisonment for such offence may be extended for period of five year.
4. Section 138 apply unless - the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

A

1 and 4

B

2 and 3

C

2, 3 and 4

D

Only 4

As per Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 if any payment is made on account of a debt, before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or by his agent duly authorized in that behalf a fresh period of limitation starts running from the

A

Time when suit was filed

B

When the payment was made

C

When the creditor demands

D

None of the above

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

A

1, 2

B

3, 4

C

2, 4, 5

D

All of these

Related Questions