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

1918 Supreme(All) 275

ABDUL RAOOF, TUDBALL
Hamida Bibi – Appellant
Versus
Fatima Bibi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the Court below. The question was one of limitation and application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The parties to this suit were co tenants in a holding. A suit was brought against them for rent and a decree was obtained (against them jointly) on the 6th of July 1910. On the 19th of August 1910 the plaintiff paid the decretal debt. On the 20th May 1913, some ninety days before the expiry of the period of limitation which is fixed by Article 99 of the First Schedule, she instituted a suit in the Small Cause Court. An objection was taken that the Court had no jurisdiction, and on the 27th of November 1913, the Small Cause Court held that it had no jurisdiction and directed the plaintiff to take back the plaint and file it in the proper Court.The plaintiff refused to take back the plaint.On the 19th of February 1914, that is nearly ninety days after the order of the Small Cause Court, she filed an application in the High Court for revision of the order. This application was dismissed by this Court on the 16th of March 1915. The plaintiff then apparently took a rest. She waited until the 15th of June 1915, that if

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