Skip to content


K. Nataraja Gramani Vs. Sivakolundu Gnamani - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad245; (1942)2MLJ735
AppellantK. Nataraja Gramani
RespondentSivakolundu Gnamani
Excerpt:
- .....without jurisdiction because it proceeds on a different view of the limitation question. in the result the revision petition is allowed with costs here and in the district court and the order of the subordinate judge is.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. The appeal to the District Judge against the order of the Subordinate Judge was incompetent and the appellate order has to be set aside. I am asked in revision to rectify what appears to be an erroneous decision on the limitation question by the trial Court. While I am of opinion that the procedure of the executing Court in granting an ad interim stay followed by an absolute order is not contemplated by Section 20 of Act IV of 1938 and that when once a stay has been granted limitation for an application under Section 19 will begin to run, I am not prepared to hold that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was without jurisdiction because it proceeds on a different view of the limitation question. In the result the revision petition is allowed with costs here and in the District Court and the order of the Subordinate Judge is restored.


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