Skip to content


Raghunath Gopal Vs. Nilu Nathaji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Civil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR9Bom452
AppellantRaghunath Gopal
RespondentNilu Nathaji
Excerpt:
.....high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. - and as the district judge has rested satisfied with declaring the appeal to be barred without giving any reasons, we think we ought to discharge his order, and direct him to make a fresh order with due regard to the above remarks......was prosecuting an application for revision before the special judge under the dekhan agriculturists' belief act, which was rejected for defect of jurisdiction. this might, under proper circumstances, as to the existence of which in the present case we give no opinion, be regarded as constituting a sufficient cause for delay. trimbakraj v. the general traffic manager of the g.i.p. railway company printed judgement for 1880,p. 345 and balvantsing v. gumaniram i.l.r. 5 all. 591. there were, therefore, circumstances in the appellant's case deserving of careful consideration; and as the district judge has rested satisfied with declaring the appeal to be barred without giving any reasons, we think we ought to discharge his order, and direct him to make a fresh order with due regard to the.....
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies against the order of the District Judge dismissing the appeal as too late. We agree, however, with the decision in Gulab Rai v. Mangli Lal I.L.R. 7 All. 42 that as such an order disposes of the appeal, it is a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (XIV of 1882) taken in connection with the last paragraph of Section 582, and, therefore, appealable under Section 540, The appellant justified the delay in presenting his appeal, on the ground that he was prosecuting an application for revision before the Special Judge under the Dekhan Agriculturists' Belief Act, which was rejected for defect of jurisdiction. This might, under proper circumstances, as to the existence of which in the present case we give no opinion, be regarded as constituting a sufficient cause for delay. Trimbakraj v. The General Traffic Manager of the G.I.P. Railway Company Printed Judgement for 1880,p. 345 and Balvantsing v. Gumaniram I.L.R. 5 All. 591. There were, therefore, circumstances in the appellant's case deserving of careful consideration; and as the District Judge has rested satisfied with declaring the appeal to be barred without giving any reasons, we think we ought to discharge his order, and direct him to make a fresh order with due regard to the above remarks. The costs of this appeal, to abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //