Skip to content


Venkobachar Vs. Raghavandrachar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ96
AppellantVenkobachar
RespondentRaghavandrachar
Excerpt:
- 1. the district judge has dismissed the application as barred by limitation. the appellant's case is that he never had any notice of the appeal. the return on the notice is that it was tendered to the younger brother of the appellant. under section 82 of the civil procedure code it was the duty of the court before proceeding with the appeal to declare that the notice had been duly served. this the court, as the record shows, did not do, and without such declaration there is no sufficient service. if, in fact, the appellant had no notice of the appeal, article 169 of schedule ii of the limitation act can have no application. we, therefore, set aside the order of the district judge and remand the case for disposal on the merits. costs will abide and follow the result.
Judgment:

1. The District Judge has dismissed the application as barred by limitation. The appellant's case is that he never had any notice of the appeal. The return on the notice is that it was tendered to the younger brother of the appellant. Under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Code it was the duty of the Court before proceeding with the appeal to declare that the notice had been duly served. This the Court, as the record shows, did not do, and without such declaration there is no sufficient service. If, in fact, the appellant had no notice of the appeal, Article 169 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act can have no application. We, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge and remand the case for disposal on the merits. Costs will abide and follow the result.


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