On the last day of the period of limitation prescribed for the institution of a suit, A applies for leave to sue as a pauper. The application is heard a fortnight later. It transpires at the hearing of the application that A was possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the Court-fees. Before an order is made under this rule rejecting the application, A pays the necessary Court-fees, and the application is thereupon converted into a plaint.

On the last day of the period of limitation prescribed for the institution of a suit, A applies for leave to sue as a pauper. The application is heard a fortnight later. It transpires at the hearing of the application that A was possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the Court-fees. Before an order is made under this rule rejecting the application, A pays the necessary Court-fees, and the application is thereupon converted into a plaint. Correct Answer Both A and B

Bissoy MCQ

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.
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
For the purpose of Limitation Act, a suit is instituted:
(1) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer
(2) in the case of a pauper when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made
(3) in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound-up by the Court when the claimant first sends in the claim to the official liquidator
Which of the above are correct?
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 a case, A applies for leave to sue as a pauper. On the day fixed for the hearing of the application. A, alleging that he has succeeded in negotiating a loan for the payment of the Court-fees, pays the necessary Court-fees.
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 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?
X took leave to sue as a pauper on the last day of limitation period i.e. on 1st January, 2000. Court did not grant such permission and asked him to pay the court fee within one week
'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':
Each of the following problem has a question and two statements which are labeled 1. and. Use the data given in 1. and 2. to decide whether the statements are sufficient to answer the question.Select one of the following . a.Statements (1) ALONE is sufficient,but (2) ALONE is not sufficient. b.Statements (2) ALONE is sufficient,but (1) ALONE is not sufficient. c. Both statement TOGETHER are sufficient but statement alone is sufficient .How many minutes are there is time period T? (1) Time period T extends from 12.00 midnight to 12.00 noon.(2) Time period T is 2 hours and 180 seconds long.