Skip to content


Tirtha Sami Vs. Seshagiri Pai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR17Mad299
AppellantTirtha Sami
RespondentSeshagiri Pai and ors.
Cases ReferredDeo Prosad Singh v. Pertab Kairee I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation - limitation act (act xv of 1877), section 14--deduction of time during prosecution of suit with due diligence--defect of jurisdiction--other cause of a like nature. - - 1. assuming that the suit is one to which the six years' rule applies, we do not think that the plaintiff can take advantage of section 14 of the limitation act, inasmuch as his previous suit against the same defendant failed, not by reason of any want of jurisdiction on the part of the court, but by reason of misjoinder of causes of action and parties. in our opinion that is not a cause of a like nature within the meaning of the section.1. assuming that the suit is one to which the six years' rule applies, we do not think that the plaintiff can take advantage of section 14 of the limitation act, inasmuch as his previous suit against the same defendant failed, not by reason of any want of jurisdiction on the part of the court, but by reason of misjoinder of causes of action and parties. in our opinion that is not a cause of a like nature within the meaning of the section. we are unable to agree with the decision in deo prosad singh v. pertab kairee i.l.r. 10 cal. 86 the courts of allahabad and bombay seem to take the same view as we do.2. the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. Assuming that the suit is one to which the six years' rule applies, we do not think that the plaintiff can take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as his previous suit against the same defendant failed, not by reason of any want of jurisdiction on the part of the Court, but by reason of misjoinder of causes of action and parties. In our opinion that is not a cause of a like nature within the meaning of the section. We are unable to agree with the decision in Deo Prosad Singh v. Pertab Kairee I.L.R. 10 Cal. 86 The Courts of Allahabad and Bombay seem to take the same view as we do.

2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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