Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Where a plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence and in good faith, another civil proceeding, relating to the same matter in issue, in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction is unable to entertain it, the period so spent by the plaintiff is Iiable to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for a suit, under

Where a plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence and in good faith, another civil proceeding, relating to the same matter in issue, in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction is unable to entertain it, the period so spent by the plaintiff is Iiable to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for a suit, under Correct Answer Section 14 of Limitation Act

Related Questions

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.
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
Which of the followingconditions has to be satisfied for the application of Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963?
1. Both the prior and subsequent proceeding are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party
2. The prior proceedings had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith
3. The failure of the prior proceedings was due to defect of jurisdiction or cause of the nature
4. The earlier proceedings and later proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue
5. Both the proceedings are in Court
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
In order for that a decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the court which may decide that suit must have been?
1. A civil court of competent jurisdiction
2. A court of exclusive jurisdiction
3. A court of concurrent jurisdiction 'competent to try the subsequent suit'
4. A court of limited jurisdiction competent to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit
Which of the following statements are correct in the context of Section 5 of Code of Civil Procedure?
1. Revenue Court is a part of Civil Court
2. Civil Court. means courts having original jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure but not Revenue Court
3. Civil Court means courts having original jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure including Revenue Court
4. Revenue Court is not a part of Civil Court
The pie chart given below shows the amount spent by a boy on the purchase of six different items. The total amount spent on all these six items is Rs. 54000. The amount spent on a specific item is represented as a degree with reference to the total amount spent on all these six items. Which of the following statement(s) is/are correct? I. The amount spent on article A is Rs.900 less than the amount spent on article B. II. The amount spent on article C is Rs 2400 more than the amount spent on article D. III. The ratio of the amount spent on article B to the amount spent on article E is 4 : 1.
Which of the following distinction(s) is/are not correct between public issue and rights issue? (A) In public issue, applications for shares are invited from the general public and in rights issue, the shares are offered to existing shareholders. (B) In public issue there is no question of any over-subscription and in rights issue the shares may be under subscribed or over subscribed leading to prorata allotment. (C) The price of public issue is generally less than the market price and in rights issue, the price is deliberately made less than the market price. (D) In a public issue, the communication of the issue is through prospectus or advertisements and in a rights issue the communication is between the company and the existing members of the company. Choose the most appropriate answer from the options given below:
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.
While computing period of limitation of a suit time spent in another similar proceeding in the Court having no jurisdiction can be excluded if