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

1967 Supreme(Pat) 81

RAMRATNA SINGH, SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH
Beni Ram – Appellant
Versus
Ganga Sah – Respondent


Judgment

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before us is whether the benefit of Sec.14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 is available to a plaintiff who has withdrawn an earlier suit with permission to sue afresh under Clause (2) of Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure and then instituted a fresh suit on the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






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