Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

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

Under Section 21 of Limitation Act, a suit is deemed to have been instituted, in case of a new plaintiff impleaded/added Correct Answer On the date on which the new plaintiff is 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
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
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 theft had been committed in the defendant's house. He informed the police that he suspected the plaintiff for the same. Therefore the plaintiff was arrested by the police. A complaint was filed by the defendant but the plaintiff was subsequently discharged by the magistrate as the final report showed that there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff with the theft. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.
In the above case, which one of the following decisions is correct?
An order under O. 33, r 11 directing the pauper plaintiff to pay the Court-fees can only be made in which of the following cases?
1. Where the plaintiff fails in the suit
2. Where the plaintiff is dispaupered under r 9
3. Where the suit is withdrawn
4. Where the suit is dismissed under the circumstances specified in clause (a) or cl. (b)
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?
Under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963 cross suit by way of set-off shall be deemed to have been instituted
Under section 21 of Limitation Act, 1963 when the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted as against the newly impleaded defendant -
The plaintiff instructed his Banker to deposit excise duty on his behalf in the Govt. treasury and debit the current account of plaintiff. The Bank deposited the said sum in the treasury. Later the plaintiff came to know, that the said amount was embezzled by the Treasurer and the Accountant of the treasury and the amount was not credited in the name of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff brings an action against the State for damages then the State is:
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?