Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-02-1911
Reported in : 12Ind.Cas.38; (1913)24MLJ457
1. The question for decision is whether an order of the High Court passed in the exercise of its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an order on an appeal within the meaning of Article 182 Sub-clause 2 of the Limitation Act so as to create a fresh starting point for the calculation of limitation. Wallis J. has held that it is not, and we are inclined to agree with him. The decisions in Chappan v. Moidin Kutti I.L.R. (1898) M. 68, Secretary of State for India in Council v. British India Steam Navigation Co. (1911) 15 C.W.N. 848 and Harish Chandra Acharya v. The Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad do not really touch the question. They only consider the effect of orders passed by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction as they stand in relation to the power of appeal conferred by Sections 15 and 39 of the Letters Patent.2. When a question was raised whether an order passed under Section 622--corresponding to Section 115 of the present Code...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-28-1911
Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.788
1. In this case the 1st and 2nd defendant each obtained a decree for money against the third defendant, and certain property was attached as belonging to the judgment-deptor in execution of each of the decrees. When the attachment was made at the instance of the 1st defendant, plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 and the 4th defendant, who are sisters, put in a claim petition urging that the property attached belonged originally to their mother, the 3rd defendant's wife, that they had succeeded as heirs and that, therefore, 1st defendant had no right to attach it as belonging to the 3rd defendant. No claim-petition was put in when the second defendant made the attachment. This suit is instituted by the plaintiffs, three out of four sisters, for a declaration 'that the attachments made by 1st and 2nd defendants are not valid' on the ground that the property does not belong to the 2nd defendant.2. In issue was raised as to whether the suit was not bad for misjoinder of the causes of action on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!