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?<br>1. A civil court of competent jurisdiction<br>2. A court of exclusive jurisdiction<br>3. A court of concurrent jurisdiction 'competent to try the subsequent suit'<br>4. A court of limited jurisdiction competent to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit

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

Whether an issue heard and finally decided by a competent court of limited jurisdiction shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, that the aforesaid court was not competent of try:

A

No

B

Yes

C

Answer would depend upon the nature of the issue

D

None of the above

Which of the following are the principal rules as to concurrent jurisdiction?
1. Concurrent as to pecuniary limit and the subject matter
2. Competency of the former court to be determined as on the date of the 'former suit' and not as on the date of the 'subsequent suit'
3. Competency of the trial court determination
4. Competence of court when there is a court with preferential jurisdiction
5. Both the suits are in revenue court, but appeals lie to different authorities

A

1, 3

B

2, 4, 5

C

1, 4, 5

D

All of these

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

A

1 and 2

B

2 and 3

C

2 and 4

D

3 and 4

E

None of these

What is/are the following differences between private and public limited companies?
1. In a private limited company there is restriction on the number of members, where as no such restriction is applicable on a public limited company.
2. A private limited company can be listed on a stock exchange, where as a public limited company is always listed on a stock exchange.
3. A private limited company cannot issue debentures, whereas a public limited company can issue debentures.

A

1 only

B

2 and 3 only

C

1 and 3 only

D

1, 2 and 3

A suit was filed and disposed off by a Court which had no territorial jurisdiction to try it. That judgement and decree became final. Whether the findings recorded in it operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties.

A

No

B

Yes

C

Depends on the facts and circumstances of each case

D

At the discretion of the court

A decree in a suit against certain members of a sect alleged to be wrongdoers in their individual capacity cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit against the other members of the sect. The wrong complained of in the former suit was that the defendants carried an idol in procession through certain streets and that such processions were in violation of plaintiff's rights.

A

The suit was against the defendants in their individual capacity, and not as representing the sect to which they belonged

B

The suit was not as representing the sect to which the defendants belonged

C

Both A and B

D

None of these

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?

A

Yes, the principle of res judicata will apply

B

No, the principle of res judicata only applies against 'former suits.' In this case, the suit in Mumbai was filed subsequent to the suit in Delhi and is therefore not a 'former suit.'

C

No, because the parties did not disclose the pendency of the previous suit to the Court in Mumbai

D

No, because the plaintiff in the first suit is not the plaintiff in the second suit

A suit is dismissed wrongly on the ground of being barred by limitation. The order of dismissal would operate as res judicata and bar a subsequent suit on the same cause of action.

A

The above statement is true

B

The above statement is false

C

It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case

D

None of these

The government decided a political question (act of the State) which adversely affected the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the decision in a civil court. Decide whether the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit.

A

Yes

B

No

C

Government cannot decide a political question

D

None of the above