Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Sambasiva Chari
Versus
Ramaswami Reddi
Decided On : 27 September, 1891
Limitation Act - Summary Suit - Time Limit for Bringing Suit - Principle of law regarding parties prevented from doing a thing in Court
Fact of the Case:
The court ruled that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to extend the time of 30 days limited for bringing a Summary Suit to set aside a destraint. However, the court recognized a general principle of law that parties prevented from doing a thing in Court by the act of the Court itself are entitled to do it at the first subsequent opportunity.
Finding of the Court:
The court reversed the decree of the lower appellate Court and remanded the appeal for disposal on the merits. The plaintiff's costs in this Court will be paid by the defendant and the costs incurred in the lower Courts will abide and follow the result of the further trial ordered.
Issues: Interpretation of the provisions of the Limitation Act and the applicability of the principle of law regarding parties prevented from doing a thing in Court
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to extend the time for bringing a Summary Suit, but recognized a general principle of law that allowed the plaint to be filed in time due to the Court being closed on the 30th day, which was a Sunday.
Final Decision: The decree of the lower appellate Court was reversed, and the appeal was remanded for disposal on the merits. The plaintiff's costs in this Court will be paid by the defendant and the costs incurred in the lower Courts will abide and follow the result of the further trial ordered.
1. We are clearly of opinion that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to extend the time of 30 days limited by Sections 18 and 51 of Act VIII of 1865 for bringing a Summary Suit to set aside a destraint. The cases at Veeramma v. Abbiah I. L. R., 18 M., 99 and Appa Rau Sanayi Aswa Rau v. Krishnamurthi Ib. 20 M., 249 and Kumara Akkappa v. Sithala Naidu 476 place the matter beyond all doubt. Nor is Section 10 of the General Clauses Act or Section 11 of the Madras General Clauses Act applicable, inasmuch as they do not refer back to Acts of the year 1865.
2. But there is a general principle of law which has been recognized in two recent cases by the High Court of Calcutta Shooshee Bhusan v. Gobind Chunder (I. L. R., 18 C, 231 and Peary Mohund Aich v. Anunda Charan Biswas Ib. 631) that "where parties are prevented from doing a thing in Court on a particular day, not by any act of their own, but by the act of the Court itself they are entitled to do it at the first subsequent opportunity." I. L. R., 18 C, at p. 636. We see no reason why this principle should not be followed in cases like the present, when it has been adopted as a rule of law in cases to which the Limitation Act and General Clauses Act apply. We, therefore, rule that the plaint in this case which was filed on the 31st day after the distraint was filed in time, the 30th day being a Sunday on which the Court was closed in accordance with the rules of this Court.
3. The decree of the lower appellate Court is accordingly reversed, and the appeal remanded for disposal on the merits.
4. The plaintiffs costs in this Court will be paid by the defendant and the costs incurred in the lower Courts will abide and follow the result of the further trial ordered.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
