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

2020 Supreme(All) 375

RAJAN ROY
Arun Kumar Kedia – Appellant
Versus
Harvansh Lal Matanheliya – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Shafiq Mirza
For the Opposite Party : G. Haider, M.A. Siddiqui, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi

JUDGMENT :

1. In this SCC revision, under Section 25 of the U.P. Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (herein after referred as Act, 1887), an application for substitution has been filed by the revisionist to which an objection has been raised by Shri Rajeev Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party that it is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 121 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On being confronted learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that Article 121 of the Act, 1963 does not apply to the case at hand as it is a revision and in view of the full bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1972 Allahabad 504, Chandradev Pandey and others Vs. Sukhdev Rai and others, Article 137 of the Act, 1963 is applicable, according to which, the period of limitation is 3 years, therefore, the application for substitution, considering the date of death, is within the prescribed period of limitation.

2. The Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 is a preconstitution Act which continues to be in force. The revision at hand has been filed under Section 25 of the said Act, 1887. Section 17 of the Act deals with application of the Code of Civil Procedure t

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