Oldfield, J.
[1] The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appellant s petition to set aside the decree of the Small Cause Suit, because appellants having been called on to deposit money and the time granted for doing so having bean extended until 3rd December 1912, no deposit was made before the petition was taken up for orders on that date. Dawkins v. Wagner (1832) 3 Dowl. 535, Knox v. Simmonds (1791) 3 Bro. C.C. 358 and Isaacs v. Royal Insurance Co. (1870) L.R. 5 Ex. 296 are authorities for holding that when time is given for the performance of any act till a certain date, it includes that date. The learned Subordinate Judge therefore had no jurisdiction to pass his order of dismissal before 4th December 1912. We must allow the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the Subordinate Judge s order dismissing the petition before him; costs to abide the result of the Small Cause Suit.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
S Perumal Nadan And Four Others v. S Sivanamji Nadachi
S Perumal Nadan And Four Others v. S Sivanamji Nadachi
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
No. | 15-04-1915
Advocate List
- For the Appearing Parties -------
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OLDFIELD
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SESHAGIRI AYYAR
Eq Citations
- AIR 1916 MAD 840 1
- (1916) ILR 39 MAD 583
- LQ/MadHC/1915/204
Head Note
Limitation — Extension of time — When time is given for performance of any act till a certain date, it includes that date — Limitation Act, 1908 — S. 3
