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

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.

Correct Answer: C should have filed his own petition to set aside the ex parte decree

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

A, a bank officer, got compulsorily retired in 2014. Since the bank authorities did not release the leave encashment in his favour, he filed writ petition WP 2001 (W) of 2017 in Ranchi High Court for the same and also for the interest on the unpaid amount. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge in December 2018 directing the bank to release the privileged leave encashment benefits to the petitioner to the extent he was entitled to in accordance with law within a certain period. The prayer for interest was not specifically denied by the court. The bank filed an appeal against the order. The Division Bench of Ranchi High Court in February, 2019 declined to admit the appeal. The bank authorities released the leave encashment in favour of the petitioner. However, A files a writ petition again for a direction to the bank to disburse interest to A at the rate of 18% per annum on leave encashment released by the bank. This petition is covered under which of the following?

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?

The assignee of the holder of a life estate sued for declaration of title and injunction, immediately after the death of the life estate-holder. The suit for declaration of title was decreed, but the suit for injection was dismissed after holding that the possession was with the defendants only. Subsequently, the assignee of the life estate filed a suit for possession on the strength of the title. The bar of O. 2, r 2 was raised by the defendant.

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 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.

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

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.

A file a suit against B to recover possession of a house. He values his claim in the plaint at Rs. 8,000. The suit is filed in court C, which has jurisdiction to try the suit of a value upto Rs. 10,000. The market value of the house is Rs. 12,000 but B does not object to the jurisdiction of the court. The decree is passed in favour of A