Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

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?

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? Correct Answer Yes, but only when such suit is either to be withdrawn or compromised

Related Questions

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
Six representatives from different countries sat opposite each other diagonally opposite a round table. The Indian representative was to the right of the Russian delegate, but he was to the left of the American representative. The Australian representative was right in front of the Indian representative, but he was to the right of the South African representative and to the left of the Canadian representative. Which representative was sitting in front of the South African representative?
A theft had been committed in the defendant's house. He informed the police that he suspected the plaintiff for the same. Therefore the plaintiff was arrested by the police. A complaint was filed by the defendant but the plaintiff was subsequently discharged by the magistrate as the final report showed that there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff with the theft. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.
In the above case, which one of the following decisions is correct?
In a suit for partition three defendants were set ex parte. Preliminary decree was passed. On the application of one of the three defendants the Court set aside the decree as against all the defendants. The order of the court is
An order under O. 33, r 11 directing the pauper plaintiff to pay the Court-fees can only be made in which of the following cases?
1. Where the plaintiff fails in the suit
2. Where the plaintiff is dispaupered under r 9
3. Where the suit is withdrawn
4. Where the suit is dismissed under the circumstances specified in clause (a) or cl. (b)
The defendant had filed a complaint to the Magistrate against the plaintiff. The complaint was dismissed. The defendant moved the Sessions Judge in appeal. He got himself examined in Sessions trial although he knew the charge was false and he was acting without reasonable and probable cause. His complaint was dismissed by the Session Judge. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the defendant.
In the aforesaid case, which one of the following conclusion in correct?
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
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
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?
The plaintiff instructed his Banker to deposit excise duty on his behalf in the Govt. treasury and debit the current account of plaintiff. The Bank deposited the said sum in the treasury. Later the plaintiff came to know, that the said amount was embezzled by the Treasurer and the Accountant of the treasury and the amount was not credited in the name of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff brings an action against the State for damages then the State is: