Skip to content


Sitaram Paraji Vs. Nimba Valad Harishet - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Property
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR12Bom320
AppellantSitaram Paraji
RespondentNimba Valad Harishet
Excerpt:
limitation act (xv of 1877), sections 5 and 14 - delay--sufficient cause--deduction of time spent in another litigation in respect of the same subject-matter--mistake of law. - west, j.1. decree confirmed with costs. the time spent in the actual proceedings in the suit to set aside the order in execution might properly be deducted in computing the delay that occurred before the present appeal was filed. such a deduction would follow the analogy of the rule prescribed by section 14 of the limitation act (xv of 1877) for ordinary suits. but a deduction of the time that passed before the suit was filed would not follow that analogy. mere ignorance of the law cannot be recognized as a sufficient reason for delay under section 5 of the act, for that would be a premium on ignorance.
Judgment:

West, J.

1. Decree confirmed with costs. The time spent in the actual proceedings in the suit to set aside the order in execution might properly be deducted in computing the delay that occurred before the present appeal was filed. Such a deduction would follow the analogy of the rule prescribed by Section 14 of the Limitation Act (XV of 1877) for ordinary suits. But a deduction of the time that passed before the suit was filed would not follow that analogy. Mere ignorance of the law cannot be recognized as a sufficient reason for delay under Section 5 of the Act, for that would be a premium on ignorance.


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