The court upheld the jurisdiction of the District Judge in deciding the question of limitation, even if previous decisions of the Court were considered erroneous.

Headnote:
Service of Affidavit - Jurisdiction of District Judge - Limitation - Dismissal of Civil Revision Petition
Fact of the Case:

The affidavit filed in support of the petition was not served on the other side. The District Judge's decision on the question of limitation was challenged.
Finding of the Court:

The District Judge's decision on the question of limitation was found to be within jurisdiction, even if previous decisions of the Court were considered erroneous. The civil revision petition was dismissed.
Issues: Service of affidavit, jurisdiction of District Judge, question of limitation
Ratio Decidendi: The District Judge's decision on the question of limitation was held to be within jurisdiction, even if previous decisions of the Court were considered erroneous.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

1. A copy of the affidavit filed in support of the petition was not served on the other side.

2. Further the case of Mathuji v. Kondaji 7 Bom. L.R. 263 has not been followed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 415 of 1904 (Boddam and Sankaran Nair, JJ.), the decision in which case is subsequent to the decision in Civil Revision Petition No. 359 of 1902, where also it had been held that without an application (oral or written) within 30 days, a sale in execution could not be set aside under Section 310-A, Civil Procedure Code of 1882 (Order XXI, Rule 89).

3. The District Judge could not be said to have acted without jurisdiction or acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in deciding the question of limitation as he did, even if the above two decisions of this Court are erroneous.

4. No question under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, therefore, arises and we must and do dismiss this civil revision petition.

5. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1916 Supreme(Mad) 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARASS Aiyar, MoorePopooru Venkata NarasimmaVersusJayanti Lakshmi Narasiham AndDecided On : 7 January, 1916

The court upheld the jurisdiction of the District Judge in deciding the question of limitation, even if previous decisions of the Court were considered erroneous.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
S Aiyar, Moore
Popooru Venkata Narasimma
Versus
Jayanti Lakshmi Narasiham And
Decided On : 7 January, 1916