Skip to content


Kasaraveni Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Sri Raja Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Varu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Limitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.1000
AppellantKasaraveni Ramaswami and ors.
RespondentSri Raja Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Varu
Excerpt:
review - delay in filing petition--duty of applicant to account for delay--limitation. - - the application for review was filed on the 23rd january 1915. now supposing that the subsequent decision of the privy council laying down the law differently is a good ground for review, even then the enormous delay in this case has to be duly accounted for......the ground on which the review is asked for is that there has been a subsequent decision of the privy council which shows that the judgment of this court is wrong. the decision of the privy council referred to was passed on the 19th june 1914 in another analogous case. a preliminary objection is taken by mr. rangachariar, who appears to oppose the application for review, that the application is out of time and must be dismissed on that ground. the application for review was filed on the 23rd january 1915. now supposing that the subsequent decision of the privy council laying down the law differently is a good ground for review, even then the enormous delay in this case has to be duly accounted for. the legislature allows ninety days from the date of the decree or order. even after the.....
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. The judgment of this Court of which a review is sought was passed on the 26th July 1911, and the ground on which the review is asked for is that there has been a subsequent decision of the Privy Council which shows that the judgment of this Court is wrong. The decision of the Privy Council referred to was passed on the 19th June 1914 in another analogous case. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Rangachariar, who appears to oppose the application for review, that the application is out of time and must be dismissed on that ground. The application for review was filed on the 23rd January 1915. Now supposing that the subsequent decision of the Privy Council laying down the law differently is a good ground for review, even then the enormous delay in this case has to be duly accounted for. The Legislature allows ninety days from the date of the decree or order. Even after the judgment of the Privy Council was delivered on the 19th June 1914, the applicant did not file his application for review for more than six months. According to the ruling of this Court he has to account for every day's delay, In the affidavit no attempt whatever has been made to account for the delay. The applicant had ample time to explain the delay in a proper way and he hag not chosen to do so. He now seeks the indulgence of being allowed to file another affidavit at this stage which is objected to by Mr. Rangachariar, and I think very rightly. The application for review is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 662 to 682, 1447, 1785 and 2834 of 1915 are also dismissed with costs.


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