1. We do not think that the word 'defendant' in Article 171B of the Limitation Act includes 'respondent.'
2. It has been contended before us that the effect of Section 582 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) is to substitute for the word 'defendant' in Articles 171A and 171B of the Limitation Law the words 'defendant or respondent.'
3. We do not think that this contention is sound. Section 582 provides that in Chapter XXI, so far as may be, the words 'plaintiff,' 'defendant' and 'suit' shall be held to include 'an appellant,' 'a respondent' and 'an appeal,' respectively, in proceedings arising out of the death, marriage or insolvency of parties to an appeal.
4. This provision is in form an innovation, but from the fact that the words 'or appellant' were by Act XII of 1879 added to Section 171 of the Limitation Act, it appears that the Legislature considered that the words 'the provisions hereinbefore contained shall apply to appeals under this chapter so far as such provisions are applicable' in Section 582 of Act X of 1877 (the Civil Procedure Code which was in force when Act XII of 1879 was passed) empowered the Court to adapt to appeals the procedure contained in Chapter XXI of the Code, and such procedure could only, we think, be so adapted by reading 'appellant' for 'plaintiff,' 'respondent' for 'defendant' and 'appeal' for 'suit' in Chapter XXI of 1877. That being so, it is clear that the Legislature, by not adding the words 'or respondent' to Articles 171A and 171B of the Limitation Act, intended to exclude the case of a respondent from the operation of those articles, Apart from this consideration, we think it clear that Section 582 of Act XIV of 1882 was intended to affect only proceedings under the Code, and we do not think it was intended to extend the operation of any portion of the Limitation Act.
5. We are supported in the conclusion, at which we have arrived, by the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Narain Dass v. Lajja Ram I.L.R. 7 All. 693 and by that of a Pull Bench of the Madras High Court in Lakshmi v. Sri Devi I.L.R. 9 Mad. 1.