Skip to content


K. Ramalinga Annavi Vs. Narayana Annavi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1917)42MLJ504
AppellantK. Ramalinga Annavi
RespondentNarayana Annavi and ors.
Cases Referred and Gangadhar Karmukar v. Shekharbusini Dasya
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), section 12 - review--time spent in obtaining copy of judgment, whether can be excluded-limitation--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xlvii, rule 3. - .....on appellant's behalf do not deal directly with that portion of section 12 of the limitation act which applies to review applications under the civil procedure code and the inferences which the appellant's learned vakil wishes us to draw as logically following from, dicta (partly obiter) found in those decisions which deal with appeals allowed under the provisions of special acts cannot override the plain language of section 12 of the limitation act.2. the letters patent appeal is dismissed with costs of respondents nos. 1 to 3.
Judgment:

1. Following Wajid Alt Shah v. Nawal Kishore, (1895) A. W. N. 63 8 Ind. Dec. 461, and Gangadhar Karmukar v. Shekharbusini Dasya 35 Ind. Cas. 348, we bold that the time for obtaining a copy of the judgment sought to be reviewed should be deducted though the copy is not required by law to be filed with the review application. The eases of this Court cited on appellant's behalf do not deal directly with that portion of Section 12 of the Limitation Act which applies to review applications under the Civil Procedure Code and the inferences which the appellant's learned Vakil wishes us to draw as logically following from, dicta (partly obiter) found in those decisions which deal with appeals allowed under the provisions of special Acts cannot override the plain language of Section 12 of the Limitation Act.

2. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs of respondents Nos. 1 to 3.


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