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

Which of the followingconditions has to be satisfied for the application of Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963?<br>1. Both the prior and subsequent proceeding are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party<br>2. The prior proceedings had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith<br>3. The failure of the prior proceedings was due to defect of jurisdiction or cause of the nature<br>4. The earlier proceedings and later proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue<br>5. Both the proceedings are in Court

Correct Answer: All of these

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 computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceedings, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which from the defect of jurisdiction is unable to entertain it. Exclusion of such period has been laid down in section . . . . . . . . . of the Limitation Act, 1963.

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

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

Where a plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence and in good faith, another civil proceeding, relating to the same matter in issue, in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction is unable to entertain it, the period so spent by the plaintiff is Iiable to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for a suit, under

Reading the amended Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the insertions of O. 10, which of the following conditions should be satisfied before matter could be referred to an Alternate Dispute Redressal?
1. Existence of elements of settlement in the opinion of the Court
2. The parties must share the opinion of the court
3. Formulation of the terms of settlement by the court
4. The court should invite the observation of the parties on the terms of settlement
5. Observations of the parties must be received by the court
6. If need be, reformulate the terms of settlement and refer the same for Alternate Dispute Redressal contemplated un section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure

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.

Where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided
1. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court
2. By the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the accused resides, carries on business or is engaged in a gainful employment
3. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court in consultation with the State Government concerned
4. If the courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by that court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Which of the above are correct?

Consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States.
2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other State on the other.
3. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any corporation of Individual one side and one or more States on the other.
4. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between two or more States.
Which of these statements are correct?

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