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

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

Correct Answer: Liable to be excluded on the ground that the plaintiff was prosecuting the earlier suit with due diligence and in good faith

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.

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 for recovery of Rs. 25 lakh, the Defendant files its written statement and pleads that it does not owe any money to the Plaintiff but in fact, it is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 40 lakh from the Plaintiff. The Defendant, however, does not file a counter claim. Can the Defendant file the counter claim at a subsequent stage in the suit or file a fresh suit seeking recovery of Rs, 40 lakhs?

Which of the following statements is/are correct?
1. Appeals under Section 57 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, can be filed only before the Appellate Tribunal
2. Appeals under Section 57 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, can be filed only before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal
3. The appeal under the Information Technology Act, 20000, can be filed before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal established under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997
Select the correct answer using the given below:

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?

The plaintiff in a suit, onus of all the issues framed wherein is on the plaintiff, during the cross-examination of the defendant and his witnesses produces documents not filed earlier and not executed by the defendant or his witnesses and puts to the defendant and his witnesses the said documents. The said documents are not admitted or acknowledged by the defendant and/or his witnesses and are not admitted into evidence though remain on record.

Plaintiff was the chairperson of the town meeting. The defendant having been very vociferous, a motion was made and carried out by majority that the defendant be turned out. The defendant said he would rather pull out the plaintiff than he turned out. He advanced menacingly towards the plaintiff with clinched fists, but his advance was prevented by a warden. Decide appropriate civil action against the defendant for his action against the plaintiff.

Under which of the following situations, the appellate tribunal can rectify the mistake in the order passed by it Under Section 254 (2) of Income Tax Act?
1. If subsequent decision of the Supreme Court/High Court is available on the subject after the appellate tribunal's order.
2. If an assessee apply for rectification of the tribunal's order by raising fresh grounds before the tribunal.
3. If the omission or mistake is on the part of appellate tribunal.
4. If the order is passed by the appellate tribunal under an erroneous impression of fact or law.
Select the correct answer:

The defendant had filed a complaint to the Magistrate against the plaintiff. The complaint was dismissed. The defendant moved the Sessions Judge in appeal. He got himself examined in Sessions trial although he knew the charge was false and he was acting without reasonable and probable cause. His complaint was dismissed by the Session Judge. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the defendant.
In the aforesaid case, which one of the following conclusion in correct?

Existence of two suits, by parties litigating under same title, one previously instituted which is pending at present and the other filed later, wherein a matter in issue in the subsequently filed suit is directly and substantially in issue in the other and the relief claimed in the subsequent suit can effectively, be passed by the court of previous instance. Which section of Code of Civil Procedure decides the fate of the subsequently filed suit and its proceeding?