Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

A sues B to recover one of two properties left by C, on the ground that he and not B is his heir. Thereafter, he applies to amend his plaint for including the second property left out in the plaint as originally field. B opposes the application for amendment which is disallowed by the court. A suit by A against B to recover the second property as heir of C would be barred under rule 2:

A sues B to recover one of two properties left by C, on the ground that he and not B is his heir. Thereafter, he applies to amend his plaint for including the second property left out in the plaint as originally field. B opposes the application for amendment which is disallowed by the court. A suit by A against B to recover the second property as heir of C would be barred under rule 2: Correct Answer Both A and B

Related Questions

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 sues B to recover Rs. 1,000 alleged to be rent due under a lease executed by B. The court finds that B was in occupation of the premises during the period for which the rent is claimed, but that the alleged lease was not executed by B. At this stage A applies to amend his plaint by alleging that, though the lease was not executed by B, he is entitled to recover the amount for use and occupation of the premises.
In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?
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.
X sues A and B on a promissory note executed by A, B is A's nephew, and he is joined as a defendant on the ground that A and B are member of a joint Hindu family, and that the note was for a debt binding on the family. None of the defendant appears at the hearing and an ex parte decree is passed against both the defendants.
The decree against A proceeds on the ground that the note was passed by him and against B on the ground that the debt was incurred for a family purpose. B applies for an order to set aside the decree, alleging that the summons was not served upon him and that the debt in respect of which the note was passed by A was not incurred for a family purpose. It is not disputed that the amount was actually advanced to A.
A' files a Suit for Mandatory Injunction against illegal disconnection of electricity. 'A' also suffers loss in the business on account of non supply of electricity. The suit for Mandatory Injunction is dismissed. 'A' thereafter files suit for damages for suffering loss. The subsequent Suit is barred
A files a suit for declaration that he is entitled to certain land as the heir of C. The suit is dismissed. Subsequently suit is claimed on the basis of adverse possession; subsequent suit is barred on the ground of
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 file a suit against B to recover possession of a house. He values his claim in the plaint at Rs. 8,000. The suit is filed in court C, which has jurisdiction to try the suit of a value upto Rs. 10,000. The market value of the house is Rs. 12,000 but B does not object to the jurisdiction of the court. The decree is passed in favour of A
A', an Indian citizen, enters into a contract with 'B', a US citizen based in the USA. Certain disputes arise under the contract, and 'B' files a suit in the matter in the civil court of New York. 'A' files a counter claim in the said suit. Subsequently, 'A' files a suit in the same matter in the jurisdictional Civil Court in New Delhi. Is the latter court barred from trying the suit?