Q.1. Under the Limitation Act:

Which section says that even though limitation is not set up as defence, a time barred suit shall be dismissed? [JJS 2001]

Q.2. “Limitation bars the remedy, but does not destroy the right.” Discuss the statement. [JJ 2014]

Q.3. Advice ‘A’ in the following cases:

‘A’’s limitation period expires on a day on which the court is closed. [JS 2014]

Q.4. ‘Every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the period of limitation prescribed therefore … shall be dismissed’. Explain the statement with reference to its exceptions, if any. [HJS 1986]

Q.5. ‘Limitation bars the remedy, but does not destroy the right.’ Discuss and state the exception if any. [HJS 1988]

Q. 6. Where a person entitled to institute a suit is a minor or insane or idiot; when will the prescribed period of limitation begin to commence? Give illustrations. [HJS 1996]

Q. 7. With the help of decided cases, explain the doctrine of “sufficient Cause” as envisaged under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [HJS 1999]

Q. 8. Can the court adjudicate upon the Bar of limitation though the written statement does not raise that issue? [HJS 2000]

Q.9. “The law of limitation extinguishes remedy but does not extinguish rights.” Elucidate. When can plea of limitation be raised? [HJS 2003]

Q. 10. Comment upon the following statement:—
Law of limitation simply bars judicial remedy: it neither affects extra judicial remedies nor the substantive right itself. [HJS 2006]

Q. 11. Comment upon the following statements:—

(i) Statute of Limitation is “a statute of repose, peace and justice.”

(ii) ‘L, a landlord succeeded in getting an eviction decree against his tenant T, it which was confirmed by granting time till 31.12.2002 to vacate the premises. On 1.1.2003, a fresh lease deed was executed for a period of one year with effect from 1.1.2003. [HJS 2006]

Q. 12. ‘Law of limitation simply bars judicial remedy. It neither affects extra judicial remedies nor the substantive right itself.” Comment. [HJS 2007]

Q. 13. ‘Law of limitation simply bars judicial remedy: it neither affects extra judicial remedies nor the substantive right itself.’ Explain. [HJS 2015]

Q. 14. “Limitation merely bars remedy but does not extinguish the title’—discuss. [RJS 1976]

Q. 15. Can plea of limitation be waived by a party or ignored by a court? [RJS 1988]

Q. 16. On the last day for depositing security or cost, the court is closed. Can on this account benefit be claimed under section 4, Limitation Act for depositing cost or furnishing security on the next opening day of the court? [RJS 1988]

Q. 17. On what grounds the period of limitation may be extended under the Limitation Act? [RJS 1994]

Q. 18. “Limitation extinguishes the remedy, but not the right’. Explain the statement. [RJS 2014]

Q. 19. The defendant had taken a loan in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff on 3.5.1977. The plaintiff sent a notice of demand to the defendant who received it on 27.4.1980. Vide reply dated 6.5.1980 the defendant admitted the liability but requested the plaintiff to give him time till 30.6.1980. After waiting till 3.7.1980, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount on 4.7.1980. The defendant contested the suit only on the ground that he had repaid the amount to the plaintiff but had not insisted for the receipt at the time of paying the amount on 22.6.1980. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit holding that the same is barred by time. The plaintiff has come up in appeal and has contended that the suit is within time and further that the plea of the limitation was not taken by the defendant at any time. How will you decide? Give reasons. [DJS 1982]

Q. 20. The only question in controversy is if delay in filing of the appeal should be condoned or not. Appellant asserted that while he was coming to the court to file the appeal, on the last day when the limitation was to expire, he met with an accident and could not file the appeal. Thus the delay should be condoned. The respondent does not dispute that the appellant had met with the accident, but urged that the appellant was non-diligent for the whole of the earlier period of limitation prescribed and could have filed the appeal earlier. Decide giving reasons. [DJS 1984]

Q. 21. Admittedly there was wide-spread strike by non-gazetted officers of the State between 5th September to 13th October, 1980. Various offices including those of the Deputy Commissioner as well as majority of Courts were not functioning properly, because of strike. Though the strike was called off on 13th October, 1980, it took some time before the employees came back to serve and normalcy returned. State filed an appeal on 15th October, 1980. Period of limitation had expired on 12th October, 1980. An application was filed for  condonation of delay on the ground that there was a general strike and the work in the offices was disrupted. How would you decide? [DJS 1989]

Q. 22. A petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act has been filed on 09.02.96 for referring the dispute between the parties to arbitrator in view of arbitration clause in contract between the parties. It is alleged that petitioner wrote letters dt. 23.05.1989, 20.02.1991 and 20.03.1992 to respondent calling upon him to appoint arbitrator for adjudication of disputes as tabulated in Annexure A. The petitioner also moved an application under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the petition on the ground that he had initially moved the Court in 1992 and had been pursuing the remedy but at appellate stage on 18.01.1996 the proceedings were held ab initio defective as the petitioner firm was not registered on the date of initiation of proceedings. During those proceedings however the petitioner firm obtained registration on 26.2.93. The respondent contested the petition/application contending inter alia that the suit is barred by limitation as provisions of section 5 or 14 are not applicable and even sufficient cause has not been made out. Give your decision vide reasoned order. [DJS 1999]

Q. 23. The plaintiff had advanced a loan of Rs. 3000/- to the defendant by issuing a cheque on 27.08.1981. Interest was agreed to be paid @ Rs. 18% p.a. Interest as agreed was paid upto 27.02.1981. The defendant issued a cheque for Rs. 270/- drawn on 16.04.1984 on account of interest for the period 28.2.1982 to 28.3.1983. The cheque when presented by the plaintiff to the bank was dishonored for want of founds. The suit was filed on 4.4.1987. The defendant raised objection that the suit is barred by time. Decide this plea giving reasons for your decision. [DJS 1999]

Similar Posts