Skip to content


Hira Lal and anr. Vs. Allah Baksh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in65Ind.Cas.107
AppellantHira Lal and anr.
RespondentAllah Baksh
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), section 25 - revision--wrong decision on question of limitation--high court, power of, to interfere--limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 75. - - we cannot allow the plaintiff to suffer injustice on account of a mere failure on the part of the trial court to consult the statute under which it had acted......in time in respect of those instalments to which his suit referred, where there had been no waiver on his part. we cannot allow the plaintiff to suffer injustice on account of a mere failure on the part of the trial court to consult the statute under which it had acted. our power of supervision in respect of decisions by courts of small causes are certainly adequate to warrant our interference in a matter of this sort. we set aside the decree dismissing the suit and direct the court below to re-admit the suit on to its file of pending cases and to try it on the merits. this appeal has been heard ex parte but we think the costs of it must at least be costs in the cause.
Judgment:

1. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Roorki has dismissed a suit on an instalment bond on a finding that the whole is barred by limitation. Of Bourse he had jurisdiction to try the issue of limitation, but he has determined it without referring to the Article of the Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908) which would be applicable. It is quite clear that under Artiste 75 of the said Schedule the plaintiff was in time in respect of those instalments to which his suit referred, where there had been no waiver on his part. We cannot allow the plaintiff to suffer injustice on account of a mere failure on the part of the Trial Court to consult the Statute under which it had acted. Our power of supervision in respect of decisions by Courts of Small Causes are certainly Adequate to warrant our interference in a matter of this sort. We set aside the decree dismissing the suit and direct the Court below to re-admit the suit on to its file of pending cases and to try it on the merits. This appeal has been heard ex parte but we think the costs of it must at least be costs in the cause.


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