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

To set aside the decree passed ex-parte, where the summons was duly served, the period of limitation is

Correct Answer: Thirty days from the date of decree

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.

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.

Under Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation prescribed for setting aside exparte decree is

A suit may be dismissed under Order 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
1. Where the summons is not served upon the defendant in consequence of the plaintiffs failure to pay costs for service of summons.
2. Where neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appears.
3. Where plaintiff, after summons returned unserved, fails for 7 days to apply for fresh summons.
4. Where on the date fixed for hearing in a suit only defendant appears and he does not admit the plaintiffs claim.

In a suit for recovery instituted by A against B, despite the summons of suit having been duly served upon B, he did not appear on the date fixed in the summons on 1st March 1993. The court consequently on 1st March 1993 passed an ex parte order against B and listed the case for 3rd April 1993 for ex parte evidence of A.

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.

Consider the following propositions:
1. A void marriage remains valid until a decree annulling it has been passed by a competent court.
2. A void marriage is never a valid marriage and there is no necessity of any decree annulling it.
3. A voidable marriage remains valid until a decree annulling it has been passed by a competent court.
4. Children born out of void marriage will get legal protection under section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the basis of decree of nullity of such marriage.
Choose the correct option from below:

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

Which of the following statements is correct?
An attachment order may come to an end by
A. Satisfaction of decree.
B. Setting aside or reversal of decree.
C. Dismissal of execution application for decree holder's default.
D. Death of the decree holder.
E. Agreement/compromise between the parties.
Select the correct answer:

The period of limitation to set aside a sale in execution of a decree under Article 127 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, from the date of the sale is: