Skip to content


Lachman Bibi and anr. Vs. Patni Ram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All510
AppellantLachman Bibi and anr.
RespondentPatni Ram and anr.
Excerpt:
decree make in favour of a firm in name of agent - applications for execution made by agent other than agent named in the decree--effect of such applications to keep the decree in force--limitation--act ix of 1871 (indian limitation act), schedule ii, article 167. - .....the one now before the court, were taken out by mohan lai, who succeeded kishn lai as the gomashta of the firm. however irregular the proceedings have been, we are not prepared to hold they are invalid. we must set aside the order of the judge, disallowing the application as barred by limitation, and remand the case for the decision of the other pleas raised. costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result.
Judgment:

Turner, J.

1. Owing to an error in procedure the decree was passed in the name of Kishn Lal, described as the agent of the firm of Megh Raj Harbilas, but it was then, as on subsequent occasions and is now, admitted that it was passed in favour of the firm of which the appellants assert they are and were the owners. The second and subsequent applications for execution, with the exception of the one now before the Court, were taken out by Mohan Lai, who succeeded Kishn Lai as the gomashta of the firm. However irregular the proceedings have been, we are not prepared to hold they are invalid. We must set aside the order of the Judge, disallowing the application as barred by limitation, and remand the case for the decision of the other pleas raised. Costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result.


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