Counter-claim, under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963, shall be deemed to have been instituted:

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

Under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963 cross suit by way of set-off shall be deemed to have been instituted

A

On the same day as the suit in which set-off is pleaded has been filed

B

On the day on which the set-off is pleaded

C

Either (A) or (B) whichever is beneficial to the defendant

D

Either (A) or (B) whichever is beneficial to the plaintiff

Under section 21 of Limitation Act, 1963 when the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted as against the newly impleaded defendant -

A

From the date of filing of the suit

B

From the date of filing of application to implead him as defendant

C

The date on which he was impleaded

D

None of them

Mark the incorrect proposition:
1. Set-off is a statutory defence to a plaintiff's action, whereas a counterclaim is a cross-action.
2. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
3. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
4. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counterclaim can exceed the plaintiffs claim.
5. Both set-off and counter-claim cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.

A

1 only

B

2 only

C

3 and 5

D

4 only

Under Section 11, Limitation Act, 1963, no rule of limitation in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir or in a foreign country shall be a defence to a suit instituted in the said territories on an contract entered into in that State or in a foreign country unless . . . . . . . .

A

A rule has extinguished the contact

B

The parties where domiciled in that State or in the foreign coun try during the period prescribed by such rule

C

Both (A) and (B)

D

None of these

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

A group of 74 students of Class XI went on picnic. The number of students who went on picnic by each section is as follows: Section A = 15 Section B = 24 Section C = 15 Section D = 20 5 students from Section A spent as much as 4 students from Section B. 12 Section B students spent as much as 9 Section C students and 6 Section C students spent as much as 8 Section D student. If every student of a particular section spent the same amount and all the students spent Rs. 23,370 altogether, find the amount spent by each student of Section D?

A

Rs. 307.50

B

Rs. 410

C

Rs. 246.50

D

Rs. 369

Under Section 21 of Limitation Act, a suit is deemed to have been instituted, in case of a new plaintiff impleaded/added

A

On the date on which the new plaintiff is impleaded

B

On the date on which the suit was initially instituted

C

On the date on which the application for impleading a new plaintiff is made

D

None of the above

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.

A

13

B

12

C

15

D

14

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

Counter-claim, under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963, shall be deemed to have been instituted:

Related Questions