Skip to content


Rajendro Kishore Singh Vs. Bulaky Mahton and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1881)ILR7Cal367
AppellantRajendro Kishore Singh
RespondentBulaky Mahton and ors.
Excerpt:
limitation - exclusion of time--limitation act (xv of 1877), section 14. - .....and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.'3. now it seems that the plaintiff, sometime ago, brought a suit for the value of these trees in the name of a person who sued as his manager; and the suit was dismissed by the high court, on the ground that as manager he had no right to sue on behalf of the plaintiff. it is argued that this was a suit prosecuted by the plaintiff (within the meaning of section 14) in good faith, and in a court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature was unable to entertain it.4. we think it clear that such a case is not within the meaning of section 14. it was not from defect of jurisdiction or from any cause of a like nature that the.....
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. It has been contended before us, that as regards the claim for the value of the trees, the plaintiff's rights are saved by Section 14 of the last Limitation Act.

2. That section enacts, that, in computing the period of limitation, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another suit against the defendants shall be excluded, when the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action, and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.'

3. Now it seems that the plaintiff, sometime ago, brought a suit for the value of these trees in the name of a person who sued as his manager; and the suit was dismissed by the High Court, on the ground that as manager he had no right to sue on behalf of the plaintiff. It is argued that this was a suit prosecuted by the plaintiff (within the meaning of Section 14) in good faith, and in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature was unable to entertain it.

4. We think it clear that such a case is not within the meaning of Section 14. It was not from defect of jurisdiction or from any cause of a like nature that the previous suit brought by the manager was dismissed. The Court in which the suit was brought had a perfect right to entertain that suit.

5. The reason why it was dismissed was because it was brought in the name of the wrong person.

6. We think, therefore, that the Subordinate Judge in this case was quite right in holding that the claim for cutting down the trees was barred.


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