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

1913 Supreme(Mad) 197

RAHIMTULLA SAIB
Hajee Aboobuckor Rahimtulla Saib – Appellant
Versus
The Official Assignee Of Madras – Respondent


ORDER

Rahimtulla Saib, J.

1. I do not accept the validity of the contention of the appellants learned Counsel that the decree of the High Court on its original side should not bear the same date as the date of its judgment or that the appellant is entitled to calculate the limitation period from when the decree was signed by the Registrar. I agree with Barney v. Broughton (1884) I.L.R. 10 C. 652 the practice of the Court being the law of the court even if the Civil Procedure Code does not apply and differ from the rulings contra. As regards the affidavit in support of the application to excuse the delay, let notice go to the other side to show cause why the delay should not be excused. Post that matter before two judges.

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