Skip to content


Sangiliya Pillai Vs. P.C. Muthti Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1931)61MLJ516
AppellantSangiliya Pillai
RespondentP.C. Muthti Chettiar
Cases ReferredRaghunatha Thathachariar v. Venkatesa Tawker I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - the vakil, as he signed above the words of verification, did not profess to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and the district munsif was obviously not satisfied that he was so acquainted, as he returned the petition for amendment by signature. it is not necessary for us on this occasion to discuss the interesting questions raised regarding the construction of section 145, code of civil procedure......petition presented on 6th january, 1922. but that petition was neither signed nor verified by the decree-holder, though it was signed by his vakil. the vakil, as he signed above the words of verification, did not profess to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and the district munsif was obviously not satisfied that he was so acquainted, as he returned the petition for amendment by signature. it was not re-presented until two years and seven months later, when it was produced after signature by the decree-holder with e.p. no. 535 of 1924. we are asked by the decree-holder to hold that the petition of january, 1922, was an application in accordance with law within the meaning of article 182 of the limitation act, although it was unsigned and unverified. in our opinion the omission.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the petition in question, E.P. No. 535 of 1924, was out of time unless the bar of limitation was saved by a previous petition presented on 6th January, 1922. But that petition was neither signed nor verified by the decree-holder, though it was signed by his vakil. The vakil, as he signed above the words of verification, did not profess to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and the District Munsif was obviously not satisfied that he was so acquainted, as he returned the petition for amendment by signature. It was not re-presented until two years and seven months later, when it was produced after signature by the decree-holder with E.P. No. 535 of 1924. We are asked by the decree-holder to hold that the petition of January, 1922, was an application in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182 of the Limitation Act, although it was unsigned and unverified. In our opinion the omission of the decree-holder to sign this petition cannot be regarded as an unimportant omission, which could not 'prejudice the judgment-debtor or mislead the Court. In Ramayyan v. Kadir Batcha Sahib I.L.R. (1907) M. 68 : 17 M.L.J. 596 the want of verification was not held to be fatal to an execution petition which the decree-holder had signed. On the other hand in Raghunatha Thathachariar v. Venkatesa Tawker I.L.R. (1902) M. 101 : 12 M.L.J. 435 an application signed by a pleader but neither signed nor verified by the decree-holder was held to be 'not such as the law contemplates'. The re-presentation of the petition of January, 1922, so long after the time allowed by the District Munsif would not bring it within Order 21, Rule 17 (2).

2. We therefore agree with the District Munsif that E.P. No. 535 of 1924 was time-barred. It is not necessary for us on this occasion to discuss the interesting questions raised regarding the construction of Section 145, Code of Civil Procedure. This appeal is allowed with costs throughout, and the District Munsif's order is restored.


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