Skip to content


Chengaya Vs. Appasami Ayyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad172
AppellantChengaya
RespondentAppasami Ayyar
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, 1877, section 230, section 248 - decree--execution--limitation. - innes, officiating c.j. and kindersley, j.1. it appears to us that the application on the 14th december 1877, though an application 'under the section' in the sense of the third clause of section 230, was not an application which was granted within the meaning of that clause. it was simply an application on which a notice was issued under section 248. the applicant cannot be brought, therefore, within the twelve years rule of section 230, and, as his last application was presented on the 10th december 1880 (not as the district judge says 18th december), it was within three years from the last preceding application, and is in time.2. we must reverse the order and allow the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

Innes, Officiating C.J. and Kindersley, J.

1. It appears to us that the application on the 14th December 1877, though an application 'under the section' in the sense of the third clause of Section 230, was not an application which was granted within the meaning of that clause. It was simply an application on which a notice was issued under Section 248. The applicant cannot be brought, therefore, within the twelve years rule of Section 230, and, as his last application was presented on the 10th December 1880 (not as the District Judge says 18th December), it was within three years from the last preceding application, and is in time.

2. We must reverse the order and allow the appeal with costs.


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