Past Questions

Option C: 3 years. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the 'Extension of prescribed period in certain cases,' which is commonly referred to as the 'Condonation of Delay.' Under this section, an appellant or an applicant may apply to the court to admit an appeal or an application even after the prescribed period of limitation has expired, provided they can satisfy the court that they had 'sufficient cause' for not preferring the appeal or making the application on time. Why other options are incorrect: - Section 7 deals with the fraud or mistake in the calculation of the limitation period. - Section 9 deals with the continuous running of time (once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or event stops it). - Section 10 deals with the computation of period of limitation in cases where the parties are minors or insane.

'Time requisite' means the time actually/necessarily required for obtaining the copy, excluding periods not required for that purpose.

Section 5 permits delay to be condoned for sufficient cause in specified appeals/applications, so option D is the applicable rule.

Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with 'Legal Disability'. According to this section, if a person is under a disability at the time from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned, they may begin to reckon the period from the time when their disability has ceased to exist. The Act specifically defines 'legal disability' for the purposes of this section as being a person who is: 1. a minor, 2. insane, or 3. an idiot. Therefore, minors, insane persons, and idiots are protected under Section 6. An 'insolvent' person is not listed as a person under legal disability under Section 6 of the Limitation Act; insolvency is a financial status governed by insolvency laws, not a mental or age-related legal disability that pauses the limitation period under this specific section.

Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the 'Legal Disability' of a person. It states that if a person is a minor, insane, or an idiot at the time from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned, they may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased as would otherwise have been allowed. However, Section 8 of the same Act provides a crucial limitation to this extension. Section 8 states that in no case shall the period of extension granted under Section 6 exceed three years from the cessation of the disability or from the termination of the minority. Therefore, while Section 6 allows for the extension, Section 8 caps that maximum extension period at 3 years.

Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a 'Bill of Exchange' is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed future time a certain sum of money to a specified person or to the bearer of the instrument. 1. **Cheque (Option a):** According to Section 6 of the Act, a cheque is defined as 'a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand'. Therefore, a cheque is a specific type of bill of exchange. 2. **Hundi (Option b):** A Hundi is a traditional Indian financial instrument used for trade. While it is a customary document, in legal practice and under the broader interpretation of negotiable instruments in India, Hundis that meet the criteria of an unconditional order to pay are treated as bills of exchange. 3. **Promissory Note (Option c):** A promissory note is NOT a bill of exchange. While both are negotiable instruments, a promissory note is a 'promise' to pay made by the debtor, whereas a bill of exchange is an 'order' to pay issued by the creditor. Since both cheques and hundis fall under the category of bills of exchange, option (d) is the correct answer.

Option D: all of the above. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.

The standard limitation period for civil revision is 90 days under the applicable Limitation Act schedule.

Option D: execution. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.

Option D: none of the above. This matches the standard definition or established fact for the concept asked.

Option B: lex fori. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.

Option A: the date of judgment. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.

Option D: in the handwriting of the person concerned. This matches the standard definition or established fact for the concept asked.

Option D: none of the above. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.

The limitation period for an application for review of judgment under the Limitation Act is 30 days.

Option C: 3 years. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 78, it is explicitly stated that a warrant may be executed at any place within India. This ensures that a person cannot evade the law simply by crossing the jurisdictional boundaries of the court that issued the warrant. - Option (a) is incorrect because the execution of a warrant is not limited to the local jurisdiction of the issuing Magistrate. - Option (b) is incorrect because the session division is a smaller administrative unit than the entire country; the law allows for a wider reach. - Option (c) is incorrect because while the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction, the physical execution of a warrant is not restricted to the High Court's territorial limits. - Option (d) is correct as per Section 78 of the CrPC, which provides for the execution of warrants anywhere in India.

Option C: both a tenant & a co-owner. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.

Option A: suits. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.

An easement can generally be acquired by prescription after 20 years of continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment.

Section 84 IPC embodies legal insanity: the relevant mental incapacity must exist at the time of the act.

The Limitation Act governs suits, appeals and applications before courts; the listed proceedings are therefore covered.

Section 27 is exceptional because expiry of limitation in a suit for possession can extinguish the underlying right, not merely bar the remedy.

Option A: 3 years. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.