K. Nataraja Gramani
v.
Sivakolundu Gramani
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Civil Revision Petition No. 1552 Of 1940 | 27-08-1942
(Petition (disposed of on 27-8-1942) under S. 115 of Act V of 1908, praying that the High Court will be pleased to revise the order of the District Court of Chingleput, dated 6th February, 1940 and made in A.S. No. 347 of 1938, preferred against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput, dated 20th September, 1938 and made in M.P. No. 321 of 1938 in O.S. No. 29 of 1936.)
The appeal to the District Judge against the order of the Subordinate Judge was incompetent and the appellate order has to be set aside. I am asked in revision to rectify what appears to be an erroneous decision on the limitation question by the trial Court. While I am of opinion that the procedure of the executing Court in granting an ad interim stay followed by an absolute order is not contemplated by S. 20 of Act IV of 1938 and that when once a stay has been granted limitation for an application under S. 19 will begin to run, I am not prepared to hold that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was without jurisdiction because it proceeds on a different view of the limitation question. In the result the revision petition is allowed with costs here and in the District Court and the order of the Subordinate Judge is restored.
The appeal to the District Judge against the order of the Subordinate Judge was incompetent and the appellate order has to be set aside. I am asked in revision to rectify what appears to be an erroneous decision on the limitation question by the trial Court. While I am of opinion that the procedure of the executing Court in granting an ad interim stay followed by an absolute order is not contemplated by S. 20 of Act IV of 1938 and that when once a stay has been granted limitation for an application under S. 19 will begin to run, I am not prepared to hold that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was without jurisdiction because it proceeds on a different view of the limitation question. In the result the revision petition is allowed with costs here and in the District Court and the order of the Subordinate Judge is restored.
Advocates List
For the Petitioner R. Thirumalai Thathachariar, Advocate. For the Respondent M. Ranganatha Sastri, Advocate.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WADSWORTH
Eq Citation
(1942) 2 MLJ 735
1942 MWN 789
AIR 1943 MAD 245
LQ/MadHC/1942/298
HeadNote
Debt, Money Lending and Limitation Act, 1938 — S. 20 — Stay of execution of decree — Procedure for — Grant of ad interim stay followed by an absolute order — Held, is not contemplated by S. 20 — Limitation Act, 1908, S. 19
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.