Skip to content


Thandayuthapani Sethuram and ors. Vs. Chinnathal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Mad149(1); 24Ind.Cas.872
AppellantThandayuthapani Sethuram and ors.
RespondentChinnathal and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115 - limitation act (ix of 1908), section 5--delay in presentation of appeal--refusal to excuse delay--order, whether open to revision. - .....judge of tanjore dismissing a petition purporting to be presented, under order xli, rule 1, civil procedure code, and section 5 of the indian limitation act. in his order the judge holds that the petitioner's appeal to his court was barred by limitation and that there was no excuse for the delay in its presentation. he accordingly dismissed the petition : and (in effect) rejected the appeal as time--barred.2. the question is whether a revision petition will lie under section 115, civil procedure code. in so far as the petition was one to excuse delay in presentation i think it is quite clear that the order is not open to revision. mr. ramachandra aiyar, however, contends that the appeal was not really time-barred and that the district judge's order in so far as it declares the.....
Judgment:

Tyabji, J.

1. This is a petition to revise under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, an order of the District Judge of Tanjore dismissing a petition purporting to be presented, under Order XLI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, and Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. In his order the Judge holds that the petitioner's appeal to his Court was barred by limitation and that there was no excuse for the delay in its presentation. He accordingly dismissed the petition : and (in effect) rejected the appeal as time--barred.

2. The question is whether a revision petition will lie under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. In so far as the petition was one to excuse delay in presentation I think it is quite clear that the order is not open to revision. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar, however, contends that the appeal was not really time-barred and that the District Judge's order in so far as it declares the appeal to be time-barred is open to revision. The latest ruling on the point is a very recent one of Sankaran Nair and Sadasiva Aiyar, JJ., in Letters Patent Appeal No. 82 of 1911 and following this, I must hold that even in this respect the Judge's order is not open to revision under Section 115. Civil Procedure Code.

3. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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