Skip to content


Ashanulla Vs. the Collector of Dacca and Rajandra NaraIn Roy, Bahadur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR15Cal242
AppellantAshanulla
RespondentThe Collector of Dacca and Rajandra NaraIn Roy, Bahadur and ors.
Excerpt:
limitation act, 1877, section 5, and schedule ii, article 156 - appeal--review, exclusion of me taken up with--practice. - .....unit the 17th november following, and that his time having been taken up by that application the time for appealing was thereby extended.3. if we were shown that there were any good grounds for the review, or that the application was, under the circumstances, a reasonable and proper one, although it was eventually refused, we might think that the fact that be was prosecuting the review was a reason why we should be satisfied that there was sufficient ground for his not presenting the appeal within the time limited. but in this particular case we are not shown, in the first instance, that there were any grounds for a review, for when we come to examine the grounds of the application for review we find that they are all grounds of appeal, and none of them a ground for review; and,.....
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. We think that; this preliminary objection must prevail. The objection is that the appeal has been filed too late. The decree was dated the 26th June 1886, and the appeal was filed on the 1st December of that year. The limitation provided for filing such appeals is 90 days, subject to the proviso in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That proviso is: 'Any appeal or application for a review of judgment may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal or making the application within such period.'

2. The ground upon which the appellant seeks to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not presenting his appeal within the prescribed time is that he says that on the 7th September 1886, he presented an application for review, that the application was not refused unit the 17th November following, and that his time having been taken up by that application the time for appealing was thereby extended.

3. If we were shown that there were any good grounds for the review, or that the application was, under the circumstances, a reasonable and proper one, although it was eventually refused, we might think that the fact that be was prosecuting the review was a reason why we should be satisfied that there was sufficient ground for his not presenting the appeal within the time limited. But in this particular case we are not shown, in the first instance, that there were any grounds for a review, for when we come to examine the grounds of the application for review we find that they are all grounds of appeal, and none of them a ground for review; and, therefore, if we were to hold that the presentation of an application of this kind was a sufficient ground for not presenting the appeal within time, we should have to hold that the presentation of every application for review, whether it were groundless or unreasonable, or whether there was anything in it or not, in itself extended the time for preferring the appeal. In our opinion it is impossible to hold anything of the kind. We think that where it is not shown that there were reasonable grounds for making the application for review, the mere presentation of it is not a reasonable or sufficient ground for not presenting the appeal within time, and therefore this preliminary objection must be given effect to and this appeal dismissed with costs.


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