Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ahmedullah Vs. Moshaullah

Ahmedullah vs Moshaullah

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 11, 1886
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/865789

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Limitation

Case Summary

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

Appeal - Ex parte Order--Admission of Appeal--Limitation Act, 1877, Section 5--Sufficient cause. -

Key legal issue
Limitation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ahmedullah

Respondent

Moshaullah

Legal References

Reported In
(1886)ILR13Cal78

Excerpt

appeal - ex parte order--admission of appeal--limitation act, 1877, section 5--sufficient cause. - prinsep and trevelyan, jj.1. it is sufficient for the matter now under consideration, that, is to say, whether or not the appellant has satisfied us that he had sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the period prescribed by law, to refer only to the order passed by a division bench of this court on the 6th january 1885, admitting the appeal. that order was passed ex parte, and without notice to the respondent; and it was therefore open to reconsid9ration if the respondent after notice of the appeal thought proper to question the right of the appellant to have it admitted.2. the grounds assigned by the appellant for special indulgence under section 5 of the limitation act were then stated to be that he had not sufficient funds to proceed in the regular manner within the time prescribed by law, and it is now objected that this is not a sufficient cause. we think that the objection is fatal. if such ground be accepted as sufficient cause for a special order of this description, there would be no limit to the period for extending the usual term of limitation to presenting an appeal. we therefore feel bound to hold that this appeal is barred by limitation and we accordingly dismiss it.3. each party must pay his own costs.

Full Judgment

Prinsep and Trevelyan, JJ.

1. It is sufficient for the matter now under consideration, that, is to say, whether or not the appellant has satisfied us that he had sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the period prescribed by law, to refer only to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the 6th January 1885, admitting the appeal. That order was passed ex parte, and without notice to the respondent; and it was therefore open to reconsid9ration if the respondent after notice of the appeal thought proper to question the right of the appellant to have it admitted.

2. The grounds assigned by the appellant for special indulgence under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were then stated to be that he had not sufficient funds to proceed in the regular manner within the time prescribed by law, and it is now objected that this is not a sufficient cause. We think that the objection is fatal. If such ground be accepted as sufficient cause for a special order of this description, there would be no limit to the period for extending the usual term of limitation to presenting an appeal. We therefore feel bound to hold that this appeal is barred by limitation and we accordingly dismiss it.

3. Each party must pay his own costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial