Skip to content


Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur Estates Vs. Muthyala Venkatratnam and ors., - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad1155(2); 32Ind.Cas.816
AppellantGopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur Estates
RespondentMuthyala Venkatratnam and ors., ;chinna Silaru Sahib and ;muhammad Ajeem Sahib
Cases Referred and Ramanadan Chetti v. Periatambi Shervai
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 182 - execution petition--return for amendment--no re-pre-mentation--step-in-aid. - phillips, j.1. it has been held by this court in narayanaswami naidu v. gantayya (1915) m.w.n. 865 and ramanadan chetti v. periatambi shervai 6 m.k 250 that an execution petition returned for amendment but not re-presented, is an application which will give a fresh starting point for limitation. the present execution petition is, therefore, not barred by limitation and must be restored to file and disposed of in accordance with law.
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

1. It has been held by this Court in Narayanaswami Naidu v. Gantayya (1915) M.W.N. 865 and Ramanadan Chetti v. Periatambi Shervai 6 M.K 250 that an execution petition returned for amendment but not re-presented, is an application which will give a fresh starting point for limitation. The present execution petition is, therefore, not barred by limitation and must be restored to file and disposed of in accordance with law.


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