RAMRATNA SINGH, SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH
Beni Ram – Appellant
Versus
Ganga Sah – Respondent
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs who instituted a suit for damages on account of a defect in the title of the ancestor of the defendants respondents in the property covered by a registered sale deed executed by him in favour of plaintiff No. 1 in June, 1938 for Rs. 1000. The only question raised before us is whether the benefit of Sec.14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 is available to a plaintiff who has withdrawn an earlier suit with permission to sue afresh under Clause (2) of Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure and then instituted a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The plaintiffs, in the instant case, had instituted a suit against the defendants for the same relief and the same cause of action with the period prescribed by the relevant Article of the said Limitation Act, but they withdrew the suit with the permission of the court to sue afresh. Thereafter, the present suit was instituted on the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. If the benefit of Sec.14 of the Act is available to the present plaintiffs, then the suit is within time, otherwise it is conceded by Mr. Prem Lall that it is barred by limitation.
2. Rule 2 of Order 23 l
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.