Skip to content


Hajee Aboobuckor Rahimtulla Saib Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1913)25MLJ560
AppellantHajee Aboobuckor Rahimtulla Saib
RespondentThe Official Assignee of Madras and anr.
Cases ReferredBarney v. Broughton I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- orderrahimtulla saib, j.1. i do not accept the validity of the contention of the appellant's learned counsel that the decree of the high court on its original side should not bear the same date as the date of its judgment or that the appellant is entitled to calculate the limitation period from when the decree was signed by the registrar. i agree with barney v. broughton i.l.r. (1884) c. 652 the practice of the court being the law of the court even if the civil procedure code does not apply and differ from the rulings contra. as regards the affidavit in support of the application to excuse the delay, let notice go to the other side to show cause why the delay should not be excused. post that matter before two judges.
Judgment:
ORDER

Rahimtulla Saib, J.

1. I do not accept the validity of the contention of the appellant's learned Counsel that the decree of the High Court on its original side should not bear the same date as the date of its judgment or that the appellant is entitled to calculate the limitation period from when the decree was signed by the Registrar. I agree with Barney v. Broughton I.L.R. (1884) C. 652 the practice of the Court being the law of the court even if the Civil Procedure Code does not apply and differ from the rulings contra. As regards the affidavit in support of the application to excuse the delay, let notice go to the other side to show cause why the delay should not be excused. Post that matter before two judges.


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