Under limitation Act, any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in schedule of the limitation Act, the limitation would be

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.

A

Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is correct explanation of (A)

B

Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not correct explanation of (A)

C

(A) is true but (R) is false

D

(A) is false but (R) is true

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

Any suit for which no period of Limitation is provided elsewhere in Limitation Act 1963 the period for filing a suit is

A

Three months from the date when the right to sue accrues

B

One year from the date when the right to sue accrues

C

Three years from the date when the right to sue accrues

D

Twelve years from the date when the right to sue accrues

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

A

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

B

Not liable to be excluded as the plaintiff cannot be said to be prosecuting the earlier suit with due diligence and in good faith

C

Liable to be excluded under section 14(3) of Limitation Act

D

To be excluded or not to be excluded is in the discretion of the court

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

In which of the following case, the court has held that limitation period as provided in the Limitation Act, 1963 would extend seven years by virtue of Section 39 of the Limitation Act, since a period of 30 years. Thus making Limitation period for redemption of Mortgage as 37 years

A

Santa Singh v. Prakash Singh

B

Purshottam v. Sagaji

C

M. P. Ahmad v. Kutheravattam Estate Receiver

D

All the above cases

Where in any case, the suit or application is based upon fraud or mistake, the period of limitation shall not begin to run unit the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake. The statement is:
(1) False
(2) True
(3) Provided under Section 17
(4) Not provided under Limitation Act
Choose the correct combination:

A

None of the options is correct

B

Only (1) is correct

C

(1) and (4)

D

(2) and (3)

Section 6 of the Limitation Act lays down that where a person entitled to institute a suit, etc. is, at the time hom which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit, etc., within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified in the Schedule.

A

Section 6 does not provide for a fresh starting point of limitation

B

Section 6 does not prevent running of limitation but only extends the period of limitation

C

Both (A) and (B) are correct

D

Both (A) and (B) are incorrect

Any suit for filing of which no period of limitation is provided in the Limitation Act, 1963, then limitation period will be:

A

1 year

B

2 years

C

3 years

D

5 years

E

None of these

What will be the period of limitation of any suit for which no period of limitation is provided in the limitation act, 1963?

A

One Year

B

Two Years

C

Three Years

D

Six Years