9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Review of Order in Revision, Personal Decree, Representation of Minor, Abandonment of Personal Decree in Plaint, Limitation for Personal Decree
In this judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the appeal challenged an Order passed in review by a single Judge, which granted a personal decree overruling the limitation contention. The appellant argued that the decree was void as the minor was not properly represented. However, this point was not pressed further. The appellant also contended that the respondent had abandoned the right to a personal decree in the plaint, which the Court found baseless. The Court noted that the right to a personal decree was not given up and that the plaintiff was subject to certain provisions while executing the personal decree. The respondent agreed to this position. Lastly, the appellant argued that the personal decree was barred by limitation due to an acknowledged payment on the mortgage-deed. The Court rejected this contention, explaining that Section 19 of the Limitation Act provides a fresh period of limitation from the date of acknowledgment, which in this case was six years from the date of acknowledgment. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 19 is to postpone the date of reckoning limitation, not to create a different substantive period of limitation. The judgment dismissed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs due to special circumstances. This judgment primarily dealt with the issues of reviewing an Order in Revision, the grant of a personal decree, the representation of a minor, the alleged abandonment of a personal decree in the plaint, and the limitation period for a personal decree. The Court clarified that the minor representation issue was not pursued further. It also established that the right to a personal decree was not abandoned by the respondent and that certain provisions applied during the execution of the personal decree. The Court further explained the application of Section 19 of the Limitation Act in determining the limitation period for the personal decree, emphasizing that the purpose of Section 19 is to provide a fresh period of limitation from the date of acknowledgment. The judgment ultimately dismissed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs under special circumstances.
|
