Skip to content


Silamban Chetty Vs. Ramanadham Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ152
AppellantSilamban Chetty
RespondentRamanadham Chetty
Cases ReferredRaman Chetty v. Kadirvelu
Excerpt:
- .....was made before the copy of the record first applied-for was ready, and a portion of the time in obtaining one record formed a part of the time in obtaining the other. the learned judges held that such overlapping period should not be counted twice over and with that exception both the two periods should be excluded. it is true, no doubt, that this would enable a party to apply for tbe copy of one record and then after obtaining that copy to apply for the copy of the other record, and thus extend the time, while if he had applied for both the copies at the same time, the time requisite for obtaining the copies would have been less. but we are unable to say that the learned judges who decided the case in raman chetti v. kadirvelu (1891) 8 m.l.j. 148 were wrong in holding that.....
Judgment:

1. The decree was passed on the 12th October 1905. The respondent applied for a copy of the decree on the 18th October and obtained it on the 19th December. He then applied for a copy of the judgment on the 23'd December and obtained it on the 16th February, 1906. The appeal was filed on the 3rd March and the question is whether the appeal to the lower appellate court was barred under Article 152 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act of 3877. The Subordinate Judge has held that under Section 12 the respondent is entitled to a deduction of the time between the 18th October and 19th December and the further time between the 22nd December and the 16th February, and he relies upon the decision in Raman Chetti v. Kadiruvelu : (1898)8MLJ148 . This decision, no doubt, supports the judge's conclusion, though in that case the later application was made before the copy of the record first applied-for was ready, and a portion of the time in obtaining one record formed a part of the time in obtaining the other. The learned judges held that such overlapping period should not be counted twice over and with that exception both the two periods should be excluded. It is true, no doubt, that this would enable a party to apply for tbe copy of one record and then after obtaining that copy to apply for the copy of the other record, and thus extend the time, while if he had applied for both the copies at the same time, the time requisite for obtaining the copies would have been less. But we are unable to say that the learned judges who decided the case in Raman Chetti v. Kadirvelu (1891) 8 M.L.J. 148 were wrong in holding that the time requisite for obtaining a copy is the period required to grant the copy after the application is made. It may, no doubt, be fairly argued that the time requisite for obtaining the copy is not necessarily the period after the date of the application, but any other construction will introduce other complications. We are not, therefore, prepared to differ from the decision in Raman Chetty v. Kadirvelu (1891) 8 M.L.J. 148 especially as it is a rule of practice, and hold that the appeal was filed in time. There is no other question of law.

2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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