Barrow Vs. Javerchund Sett

Barrow vs Javerchund Sett

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 17, 1895

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/782950

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/782950
Court: Chennai
Judge: Shephard and ;Best, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 17, 1895
Subject: Limitation;Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Limitation Act - Act XV of 1877, Section 14, Schedule II, Article 179--Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction--Step in aid of execution--Application for sanction to an agreement to give time to a judgment--debtor. - - 1. Even if the period during which the application was pending ...

Key legal issue: Limitation;Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Barrow

Respondent

Javerchund Sett

Legal References

Reported In: (1896)ILR19Mad67

Excerpt

limitation act - act xv of 1877, section 14, schedule ii, article 179--exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction--step in aid of execution--application for sanction to an agreement to give time to a judgment--debtor. - - 1. even if the period during which the application was pending in the madras court of small causes should be excluded under section 14 of the limitation act, the application of 26th february 1889, being one for sanctioning the agreement to give time for payment, and not for execution of the decree, was clearly not a step in aid of execution;1. even if the period during which the application was pending in the madras court of small causes should be excluded under section 14 of the limitation act, the application of 26th february 1889, being one for sanctioning the agreement to give time for payment, and not for execution of the decree, was clearly not a step in aid of execution; the subsequent application is, therefore, barred.2. we must, therefore, allow this appeal and restore the order of the subordinate judge. under the circumstances, we make no order as to costs of this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. Even if the period during which the application was pending in the Madras Court of Small Causes should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the application of 26th February 1889, being one for sanctioning the agreement to give time for payment, and not for execution of the decree, was clearly not a step in aid of execution; the subsequent application is, therefore, barred.

2. We must, therefore, allow this appeal and restore the order of the Subordinate Judge. Under the circumstances, we make no order as to costs of this appeal.

Same Parties Barrow vs Javerchund Sett Same Subject Limitation;Civil Same Judge Shephard and ;Best, JJ.

Limitation;Civil