Skip to content


T. Narayanaswami Naidu Garu Vs. Krovidi Gantayya and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad968(1); 32Ind.Cas.691
AppellantT. Narayanaswami Naidu Garu
RespondentKrovidi Gantayya and anr.
Cases Referred and Gurrala Seshayya v. Yedida Venkatasubbiah
Excerpt:
execution - application returned for amendment but not re-presented--step-in-aid of execution. - srinivasa aiyangar, j.1. the decisions of this court in ramanadan chetti v. periatambi shervai 6 m.k 250 and gurrala seshayya v. yedida venkatasubbiah 29 ind. cas. 16; 28 m.l.j. 494; 2 l.w. 540 are clear authorities for the position that an execution application which is presented but returned for amendment and not re-presented within the time limited, is sufficient to save limitation so far as a subsequent execution application is concerned. the district munsif is, therefore, wrong in dismissing this execution application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. i reverse his order and remand the petition to be disposed of according to law. the costs will abide the result.
Judgment:

Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. The decisions of this Court in Ramanadan Chetti v. Periatambi Shervai 6 M.k 250 and Gurrala Seshayya v. Yedida Venkatasubbiah 29 Ind. Cas. 16; 28 M.L.J. 494; 2 L.W. 540 are clear authorities for the position that an execution application which is presented but returned for amendment and not re-presented within the time limited, is sufficient to save limitation so far as a subsequent execution application is concerned. The District Munsif is, therefore, wrong in dismissing this execution application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. I reverse his order and remand the petition to be disposed of according to law. The costs will abide the result.


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