SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 53

A.M.AHMADI, B.L.HANSARIA
Sudesh Vithal Hanamsheth – Appellant
Versus
Sadanand Shivrao Koppal – Respondent


( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE only question for determination is whether the application for final decree as filed by the appellants was barred by limitation, as has been held by the courts below.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that it is Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies and which has prescribed three years as the period of limitation to be reckoned from the date right to apply accrues. The contention of the appellant is that no preliminary decree as required by order 34 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code having been prepared, which was required to be, as the suit was for redemption of mortgage, he could not have really made an application for final decree as contemplated by Rule 8 of this Order; and, as such, there could have been no question of his application for final decree being barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THOUGH this was not the point urged in the courts below, the same being a pure question of law and the preliminary decree as prepared being a part of the record available to us, we have permitted the learned counsel for the appellants to urge this point. A perusal of the preliminary decree, which is at pp. 19 and 20 of Vol. II, shows that it is not in accordance


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top