Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App

In a suit for partition three defendants were set ex parte. Preliminary decree was passed. On the application of one of the three defendants the Court set aside the decree as against all the defendants. The order of the court is

Correct Answer: Legal

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.

In a suit for partition, a Memorandum of Family Settlement is filed and on this basis the partition suit is decreed, but even after disposal of the suit the original Memorandum of Family Settlement remains in the file of the partition suit, then in such situation whether in a suit for eviction by one of the original co-owner of a tenant of a shop of the joint property which has fallen to the share of that co-owner as per the decree passed on the Memorandum of Family Settlement, can the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement be filed and proved as a public document in the suit against the tenant?

An ex parte decree passed by Court 'A' was transferred to Court 'B' for execution and which execution proceedings are pending in Court 'B'. Court 'A' aside the ex parte decree and on re-hearing, a fresh decree was passed on the same terms.

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 sued to recover a house from B and certain lands from C. The suit was decreed ex parte against both defendants. B applied to set aside the ex parte decree and having settled the dispute with A applied to withdraw his petition. C then applied to be transposed as petitioner.

In a suit for recovery instituted by A against B, despite the summons of suit having been duly served upon B, he did not appear on the date fixed in the summons on 1st March 1993. The court consequently on 1st March 1993 passed an ex parte order against B and listed the case for 3rd April 1993 for ex parte evidence of A.

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?

h,J,K,L,M,N and O are the only legislators eligible to vote on Bills 1,2 and 3, each of which will be passed if at least four legislators eligible vote in favor of it. each legislator must vote on all three bills; on abstentions are possible. The following is known : *H must vote against all three bills; each of the other legislators must vote in favor of at least one bill and against at lest one bill. *j must vote against Bills 1. *O Must vote against Bills 2 and 3. * L must the same way that K dose on all three bills.*N must vote the same way that O dose on all three bills. If any bill is to be passed,which of the following must be among the legislators who vote in favor of it?

h,J,K,L,M,N and O are the only legislators eligible to vote on Bills 1,2 and 3, each of which will be passed if at least four legislators eligible vote in favor of it. each legislator must vote on all three bills; on abstentions are possible. The following is known : *H must vote against all three bills; each of the other legislators must vote in favor of at least one bill and against at lest one bill. *j must vote against Bills 1. *O Must vote against Bills 2 and 3. * L must the same way that K dose on all three bills.*N must vote the same way that O dose on all three bills. If M votes the same way that O dose on all three bills, which of the following can be determined ?

Which of the following instances can be held to be final orders?
1. An order of a High Court dismissing an appeal for the appellant's failure to furnish order
2. An order that an appeal had abated
3. An order in a revision reversing the dismissal of a suit and restoring it to the file of the lower court when such an order had the effect of reinstating a primary decree
4. An order refusing an application under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act 1 of 1877
5. An order passed by a High Court in insolvency proceedings