Anderson Vs. Periasami

Anderson vs Periasami

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 21, 1891

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/787932

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/787932
Court: Chennai
Judge: Muttusami Ayyar and ;Parker, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 21, 1891
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code, Section 598--Application for certificate for Appeal to Privy Council--Limitation Act--Act XV of 1877, Section 12, Schedule II, Article 177. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anderson

Respondent

Periasami

Legal References

Cases Referred: Jawahir Lai v. Narain Das I.L.R.
Reported In: (1892)ILR15Mad169

Excerpt

civil procedure code, section 598--application for certificate for appeal to privy council--limitation act--act xv of 1877, section 12, schedule ii, article 177. - 1. this application for the admission of an appeal to her majesty in council is put in 92 days out of time, and the time taken by the petitioner in obtaining copies of the decree and judgment cannot be excluded.2. an application of this nature under article 177, clause 4 of the limitation act does not fall within the provisions of section 12, act xv of 1877.3. we agree with the view taken by stuart c.j., in jawahir lai v. narain das i.l.r. 1 all. 644 and the same view was taken by this court in civil miscellaneous appeal no. 254 of 1886.4. we may also observe that section 599 of the code of civil procedure has been repealed by act vii of 1888. we cannot see that the argument based upon the alleged harshness of the law has any foundation. the period of six months, which is allowed by law, seems ample, and in this case the petitioner was actullay in possession of copies of the decree and judgment on august 26th, so that he had ample time before november 6th to prepare a memorandum of grounds of appeal and make an application to this court under section 600. we are, therefore, constrained to dismiss this application with costs.

Full Judgment

1. This application for the admission of an appeal to Her Majesty in Council is put in 92 days out of time, and the time taken by the petitioner in obtaining copies of the decree and judgment cannot be excluded.

2. An application of this nature under Article 177, Clause 4 of the Limitation Act does not fall within the provisions of Section 12, Act XV of 1877.

3. We agree with the view taken by Stuart C.J., in Jawahir Lai v. Narain Das I.L.R. 1 All. 644 and the same view was taken by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 254 of 1886.

4. We may also observe that Section 599 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been repealed by Act VII of 1888. We cannot see that the argument based upon the alleged harshness of the law has any foundation. The period of six months, which is allowed by law, seems ample, and in this case the petitioner was actullay in possession of copies of the decree and judgment on August 26th, so that he had ample time before November 6th to prepare a memorandum of grounds of appeal and make an application to this Court under Section 600. We are, therefore, constrained to dismiss this application with costs.

Same Parties Anderson vs Periasami Same Subject Civil Same Judge Muttusami Ayyar and ;Parker, JJ.

Civil