Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

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

Under section 21 of Limitation Act, 1963 when the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted as against the newly impleaded defendant - Correct Answer The date on which he was impleaded

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
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.
Under Section 21 of Limitation Act, a suit is deemed to have been instituted, in case of a new plaintiff impleaded/added
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
Under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963 cross suit by way of set-off shall be deemed to have been instituted
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.
Consider the following statements in regard to institute a case of malicious prosecution:
1. The proceeding must have been instituted by the defendant.
2. The proceeding must have terminated in favour of the defendant.
3. The defendant must have acted without reasonable and probable cause.
4. The defendant must have acted maliciously.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
When a new defendant is added in the suit, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted against him from
Counter-claim, under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963, shall be deemed to have been instituted:
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 . . . . . . . .