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

1998 Supreme(Raj) 1079

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bhagwati Prasad, J.
Amajad Ali - Appellant
Versus
Abdul and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision No. 701 of 1997.
Decided On : 28-04-1998

Necessity for the Courts to finally adjudicate the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

Headnote:

Limitation Act - Application under Section 5 - Court emphasizes the necessity for the Courts to finally adjudicate the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the case to the trial Court for adjudication.

Fact of the Case:

The revisionist made an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was not finally adjudicated by the Courts below.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Courts below had not finally adjudicated the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and emphasized the necessity for such adjudication.

Issues: Failure of the Courts below to decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the Full Bench Judgment which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has application in rent control matters, and emphasized the material irregularity committed by the Courts in not deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Final Decision: The orders impugned were set aside, and the case was remanded back to the trial Court to first adjudicate the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and then decide the application for striking off the defence. The non-petitioner was ordered to pay the cost of Rs. 1000/- to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. - In this case the case of the revisionist is that he had made an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, which has not been finally adjudicated by the Courts below.

2. The counsel for the respondents was asked to point out finding in the matter. At the initial stage, he has read the operative portion of the order but he could not point out any finding. Then the learned Counsel took the liberty of reading the whole judgment and read it, then too he could not point out, that there was any finding of the Courts below for rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This Hon'ble Court by a Full Bench Judgment reported in 1998 (1) WLC 325 (L.B), Sita Ram Agarwal v. Nasiruddin , has held that Section 5 Limitation Act has application in rent control matters. In view of the law laid down by this Court, it was necessary for the Courts below to have finally adjudicated the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The Courts have committed material irregularity in not deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The orders impugned are set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial Court to first adjudicate application under Section 5 Limitation Act then decide the application for striking off the defence. The non-petitioner shall pay the cost of Rs. 1000/- to the petitioner.Order accordingly.

*******

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 Back to top