Skip to content


Narayana Chetti Vs. Alfred Champion - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad1
AppellantNarayana Chetti
RespondentAlfred Champion
Excerpt:
limitation act, schedule ii, article 84 - solicitor and client--termination of suit--decree--taxation of costs. - .....or should refrain from doing so. on the 23rd, on which date he communicated with defendant, he was instructed not to appear. it cannot be said that the suit had terminated in the sense of article 84 of the limitation act until the costs were inserted in the decree and had issued. the suit was within three years from 22nd february 1878, and was therefore in time.2. this petition must be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Innes, J.

1. We do not see that the suit was barred by limitation. The judgment in appeal was pronounced on the 5th January, but the costs had to be taxed and inserted in the decree, and the solicitor still continued on the record and was bound, on notice received on the 22nd February, to communicate, as he did, with his client, and take his instructions as to whether he should appear and watch his client's interests at the taxation, or should refrain from doing so. On the 23rd, on which date he communicated with defendant, he was instructed not to appear. It cannot be said that the suit had terminated in the sense of Article 84 of the Limitation Act until the costs were inserted in the decree and had issued. The suit was within three years from 22nd February 1878, and was therefore in time.

2. This petition must be dismissed with costs.


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