OBJECTIVE SAMPLE QUESTIONS ON LIMITATION ACT, 1963

Application includes

Writ Petition

Interlocutory application

Petition for restoration of suit

Above all

Suit does not include an appeal or an application in Limitation Act

 True

False

Cannot be said

Not a subject matter of limitation act

 The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to

proceedings before courts

Suit before courts

Suit and Proceeding Both

all the above.

The period spent in prosecuting the case before the Consumer Forum can be

partly excluded

included

excluded

partly included.

Under the Limitation Act, 1963, the court has no… power, outside the Act, to relieve a litigant from the provisions of the Act

general

inherent

over-riding

general or inherent or over-riding.

Limitation Act can be applied 

Before Criminal Court

Before Tribunal

Before Writ Court

Above all are true

If the money suit filed within three years from the date on which cause of action arises then the suit

does not relate to Limitation Act

is not barred by limitation

is barred by limitation

depends on application for condonation of delay.

The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to

 

Civil suit

partition suit

matrimonial proceeding

in an application u/s 12 of the Domestic violence act

  1. All four answers are correct
  2. Only first three is correct

Delay in filing the suit

cannot be condoned

can be condoned under section 3, Limitation Act

can be condoned under Order VII, Rule 6, C.P.C.

can be condoned under section 5, Limitation Act.

Under section 2(1) of Limitation Act suit includes

appeal

application

both (a) and (b)

none of the above.

Under section 2(1) of Limitation Act suit includes

appeal

application

execution petition

none of the above.

All instruments for the purpose of Limitation Act, 1963 shall be deemed to be made with reference to

Gregorian Calendar

English Calendar

Roman Calendar

Indian National  Calendar.

 

Which of the following statements is correct as regards the sections and the articles in the Limitation Act, 1963

the sections and the articles lay down the general principles of jurisdiction

the sections and the articles prescribe the period of limitation

the sections lay down the general principles of jurisdiction and the articles prescribe the period of limitation applicable in matters provided therein

the sections prescribe the period of limitation applicable in matters provided therein ana the articles lay down the general principles of jurisdiction.

Section 3 Limitation Act does not apply to

suits

appeals

application

execution petition

Under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963, a claim by way of is treated as a cross-suit

set-off

counter-claim

set-off or counter-claim

set-off and counter-claim.

Under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963 cross suit by way of set-off shall be deemed to have been instituted

on the same day as the suit in which set­off is pleaded has been filed

on the day on which the set-off is pleaded

either (a) or (b) whichever is beneficial to the defendant

either (a) or (b) whichever is beneficial to the plaintiff.

Counter-claim, under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963, shall be deemed to have been instituted

on the same day as the suit in which counter-claim is made has been filed

on the day on which the counter-claim is made

either (a) or (b) whichever is beneficial to the defendant

either (a) or (b) whichever is beneficial to the plaintiff.

Section 3, Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to

suits

appeals

applications

execution proceedings.

The provisions of section 3, Limitation Act [ are

mandatory

directory

discretionary

optional.

Under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963 the court is required to consider the question of limitation

only when objection to limitation is raised by the defendant

only when the defendant does not confess judgment

only when the defendant does not admit his liability

suo motu even when the defendant has not taken any objection of limitation or has confessed judgment or has admitted this liability in the written statement.

A suitor, under section 3, Limitation Act, 1963 I

can be relieved of the bar of limitation on the ground of hardship, mistake or injustice

can be relieved of the bar of limitation on the ground that its application would be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice

can be relieved of the bar of limitation on the ground of equitable considerations

cannot be relieved on the ground either (a) or (b) or (c).

Section 3, Limitation Act is applicable to the i period of limitation prescribed by any

local law

special law

both (a) and (b)

neither (a) nor (b).

Section 3, Limitation Act,’l963 is

an independent section in its operation and effect

not an independent section in its operation and effect, and is subject to and controlled by sections 4 to 24

not an independent section in its operation and effect and is subject to and controlled by sections 4 to 27

not an independent section in its operation and effect and in respect to and controlled by sections 4 to 32.

For the purposes of section 3, Limitation Act, 1963, limitation is checked

when the plaint is actually presented in the proper court

when the plaint is presented even in a court not competent to try the suit

when the plaint in presented by the part

all the above.

A time barred debt can be claimed

as a set off

as a counter claim

as a fresh suit

none of the above.

Under the Limitation Act, 1963, the court has no power to extend the limitation on the ground of

equitable considerations

hardship

necessary implication

either (a) or (b) or (c).

Section 5, Limitation Act, is

applicable to the proceedings under section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the time limit prescribed under section 34 can be extended generally

not applicable to the proceedings under section 34, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the time limit prescribed under section 34 is absolute and unextendable

applicable to the proceedings under section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and time limit prescribed under section 34 can be extended only in exceptional circumstances

not applicable to the proceedings under section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-however, the time limit prescribed under section 34 can be extended under inherent powers of the court.

An application for leave to contest the eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller attracts

section 4, Limitation Act, 1963

section 10, General Clauses Act, 1897

both (a) and (b)

either (a) or (b).

Section 4, Limitation Act, 1963 applies

where a certain period has been prescribed by a statute

where a certain period is fixed by agreement of parties

where a certain date is fixed by agreement of parties

all the above.

In order to attract section 4, Limitation Act, 1963

the court should be closed for the whole of the day

it is not necessary that the court should be closed for the whole day and it is sufficient if the court is Closed during any part of its normal working hours

the court should be closed for substantial part of the day if not for the whole of the day

the court should be closed for more than half of the normal working hours.

The extension of time granted by section 4, Limitation Act ,1963

can be combined with section 5, Limitation Act

can be combined with section 12, Limitation Act

can be combined with section 5 and section 12, Limitation Act

cannot be combined with section 5 and section 12, Limitation Act.

Section 5 of Limitation Act applies to

suit

writ application

execution

all the above.

Section 5 of Limitation Act applies to

Application

Petition

Special Leave petition

election petitions

none of the above.

Limitation for Recovery of possession based on previous Title  is

12 years

6 months as per specific relief act

Within three years  as per specific relief Act

The Matter is Confusing and no clear answer has been provided by Apex Court.

In matters of condonation of delay under section 5, Limitation Act the Government, has to be accorded

treatment similar to a private citizen and no latitude is permissible

treatment stricter than a private citizen as the Government is supposed to act in a more responsible manner

treatment similar to a private citizen, however, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible

either (a) or (b).

For condonation of delay under section 5, Limitation Act, 1963

length of delay is the only criterion

length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion

length of delay certainly matters apart from the acceptability of the explanation

either (a) or (c).

In the matters of condonation of delay under section 5, Limitation Act 1963, relating to Government

strict proof of everyday’s delay by the Government should not be insisted upon

strict proof of everyday’s delay by the Government should be insisted upon

strict proof of everyday’s delay by the Government may not be insisted upon

strict proof of everyday’s delay by the Government may be insisted upon.

In the matters of condonation of delay under section 5, Limitation Act, 1963, public institutions like banks should

be treated at par with private individuals

be treated at par with private institutions

be treated at par with corporate body

neither be treated at par with (a), nor (b), nor (c).

The delay under section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 can be condoned on

an oral application

a verbal application

a written application

either (a) or (b) or (c).

An application for condonation of delay under section 5, Limitation Act

has to be considered by the court on merits and order has to be passed with reasons

has to be considered by the courts on merits-however, the order need not be passed with reasons

has to be considered by the court on merits-however, the order may not be passed with reasons

has to be considered by the court on merits-however, it is discretionary for the court to pass order with or without reasons.

Section 6 of Limitation Act applies to

suits

execution of a decree

both (a) and (b)

none of the above.

Section 6 of Limitation Act does not apply to

suits

execution of a decree

appeal

all the above.

Section 6 of Limitation Act can be availed by

plaintiff(s)

defendant(s)

both (a) and (b)

none of the above.

Legal disabilities are

minority

insanity

idiocy

all the above.

Section 6 of Limitation Act does not apply to

insolvent

minor

insane

idiot.

Section 6 of Limitation Act does not apply to

suits

execution of a decree

suits to enforce rights of pre-emption

none of the above.

Period of limitation stands extended, by virtue of section 6 of Limitation Act for a maximum period of

1 year

3 years

6 years

12 years.

Can a plea of limitation be

waived by a party

ignored by the court

waived by both the parties by consent

none of the above.

Period for possession of a hereditary office is

Three years

Twelve years

Within a year of the vacancy of the office

No limitation has been Prescribed

 

Time which has begun to run can be stopped in case of

minority

insanity

idiocy

none of the above.

Section 6 of Limitation Act does apply in cases of

illness

poverty

insolvency

none of the above.

In computing the period of limitation for appeal, review or revision, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree or order appealed shall be excluded under

section 12(1)

section 12(2)

section 13(3)

section 14(4).

In computing the period of limitation for application to set aside an award, the time requisite in obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded under

section 12(1)

section 12(2)

section 12(3)

section 12(4).

Limitation for filing an appeal commences from

the date of judgment

the date of signing of the decree

the date of application for copy of the judgment

the date of availability of copy of the judgment.

‘Time requisite’ under section 12(2) of Limitation Act means

minimum time

maximum time

actual time taken

absolutely necessary time.

Time excluded has to be considered on the basis of

information available from the copy of judgment/decree placed on record

information as to copies obtained by the parties for court purposes

information as to copies obtained by the parties for other purposes

information as to copies not placed on record but made available to the court.

Section 13 of Limitation Act applies to

suit filed in forma pauperis

appeal filed in forma pauperies

both (a) and (b)

none of the above.

Under section 13 of Limitation Act, the time is excluded

if the application for leave to sue or appeal as a pauper is allowed

if the application for leave to sue or appeal as a pauper is rejected

in both the cases

in none of the case.

Section 14 & section 5 of Limitation Act are

independent of each other

mutually exclusive of each other

both independent & mutually exclusive

neither independent nor mutually exclusive.

Under section 14 defect in jurisdiction must relate to

territorial jurisdiction

pecuniary jurisdiction

subject matter jurisdiction

either (a) or (b) or (c).

Section 15 excludes from computation of limitation

period of notice

time taken in granting previous consent

time taken in grant of sanction

all the above.

Section 15 does not apply to

suits

appeal

execution application

none of the above.

Period during which proceedings stand stayed by an injunction or order is excluded

under section 14

under section 15

under section 13

under section 16.

Section 15 applies to

suits

execution applications

both suits & execution applications

neither suits nor execution proceedings.

Time taken in proceedings to set aside the sale, in suit for possession by a purchaser in execution, is liable to be excluded

under section 15(4)

under section 15(2)

under section 15(3)

under section 15(1).

Any Suit for which no limitation has ben prescribed can be filed

Within three years

Three months

Within a month

At any time

Section 16 applies to

suits to enforce rights of pre-emption

suits for possession of immovable property

suits to enforce right to a hereditary office

none of the above.

Section 17 takes within its ambit

frauds

mistakes

concealments

all the above.

Section 17, Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to

criminal proceedings

civil proceedings

execution proceedings

both (a) and (c).

The fraud contemplated by section 17, Limitation Act, 1963 is that of

the plaintiff

the defendant

a third person

either (a) or (b) or (c).

Whether a plaintiff could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud or mistake under section 17, Limitation Act, is a

question of fact to be decided on the basis of facts disclosed in each case

question of law

mixed question of fact and law

substantial question of law.

Under section 17, Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation starts running from

the date of the mistake

the date of discovery of mistake

either (a) or (b), depending on the facts and circumstances or the case

either (a) or (b), as per the discretion of the court.

In case of mistake, under section 17, Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation shall start running from

the date of the mistake

the date when the mistake with due diligence could have been discovered

either (a) or (b), whichever is earlier

either (a) or (b), whichever is beneficial to the suitor.

Section 17 applies to

suits

execution proceedings

both suits and execution proceed-ings

neither to suits nor to execution proceeding.

Section 17 does not take within its ambit

suits

appeals

execution application

all the above.

Under section 19, Limitation Act, 1963

payment by cheque which is dishonoured on presentation amounts to part payment and shall save limitation

payment by cheque which is dishonoured on presentation does not amount to part payment and will not save limitation

mere handing over the cheque which is dishonoured on presenta-tion amounts to acknowledgment

either (a) or (c).

Which of the following is not required for a valid acknowledgement

in writing

made before the expiration of period of limitation

signed by the person concerned

in the handwriting of the person concerned.

Section 22 refers to cases of

continuing breach of contract

successive breach of contract

both continuing & successive breaches

neither continuing nor successive breaches.

Under section 25 the easement rights are acquired by continuous & uninterrupted user

for 12 years

for 20 years

for 30 years

for 3 years.

Under section 25, the easement rights over the property belonging to the Government are acquired by continuous & uninterrupted user

for 12 years

for 20 years

for 30 years

for 60 years.

A suit against the obstruction in the enjoyment of easementary rights acquired under section 25 must be filed

within 2 years of such obstruction

within 1 year of such obstruction

within 3 years of such obstruction

within 12 years of such obstruction.

Which is correct

limitation bars the judicial remedy

limitation extinguishes the right

limitation is a substantive law

limitation bars the extra judicial remedies.

Which is not correct of law of limitation

limitation bars the judicial remedies

limitation is an adjective law

limitation extinguishes the right

limitation is a procedural law.

Which is not correct of law of limitation

limitation bars the judicial remedies

limitation is negative in its operation

limitation is a procedural law

limitation bars the extra judicial remedies.

A suit for possession based on the right of previous possession & not on title can be filed

within one year of dispossession

within three years of dispossession

within twelve years of dispossession

within six months of dispossession.

A suit for possession of immovable property based on title can be filed

within one year

within three years

within twelve years

within six months.

For a suit filed by or on behalf of Central Government or any State Government, the period of limitation is

one year

three years

twelve years

thirty years.

Law of limitation is

lex loci

lex fori

non-obstante

all the above.

Under section 21, a suit is deemed to have been instituted, in case of a new plaintiff impleaded/added

on the date on which the new plaintiff is impleaded

on the date on which the suit was initially instituted

on the date on which the application for impleading a new plaintiff is made

none of the above.

Under section 21, qua a defendant a suit is deemed to have been instituted against a newly added defendant

on the date on which the new defendant is impleaded

on the date on which the suit was initially instituted

on the date on which the application for impleading a new defendant is made

none of the above.

Under section 21, can the court direct the suit to have been instituted on an earlier date

yes, if the omission to include the party was due to a mistake made in good faith

yes, if the omission to include party was deliberate

in both (a) & (b)

neither (a) nor (b).

Section 21 does not apply in

cases of adding of a new plaintiff for the first time

cases of adding of a new defendant for the first time

cases of transposition of parties

neither (a) nor (b) nor (c).

Section 21 does not apply in

cases of devolution of interest during the pendency of the suit

cases of assignment of interest during the pendency of the suit

case of transposition of a plaintiff as a defendant & vice-versa

all the above.

Section 21 applies only to

suits

appeals & application

executions

all the above.

Law of limitation has to be strictly construed. In view of the same section 5 of Limitation Act has to be construed

strictly

liberally

harmoniously

ejusdem-generis.

Easementary rights under section 25 can be acquired by

tenant

a co-owner

both a tenant and a co-owner

neither a tenant nor a co-owner.

Section 27 of Limitation Act

bars the remedy

extinguishes the right

both (a) & (b)

neither (a) nor (b).

Section 27 of Limitation Act does not extinguish the right in

suits

appeals

execution application

all the above.

Section 27 of Limitation Act does not apply to cases for recovery of possession

where no limitation period has been prescribed

where the limitation period has been prescribed

Doth (a) & (b)

neither (a) nor (b).

Which is true of acknowledgements

extends the period of limitation

confers an independent right on a person

confers a title on the person

all the above.

Any application for which no limitation has ben prescribed can be filed

Within three years

Three months

Within a month

At any time