9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the plaintiffs' suit for rectification of a petition of adjustment of a decree. 2. Whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation under Article 96 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act. 3. Interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in relation to the proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs for execution of their decree. 4. Entitlement of the plaintiffs to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act to save the bar of limitation. 5. Relief sought by the plaintiffs for rectification of the petition of adjustment and the declaration of title and possession. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed to challenge the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for rectification of a petition of adjustment of a decree. The Court held that the suit was maintainable, as the issue of rectification could not be decided under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code due to the order recording satisfaction by the Judge before whom it was filed. 2. The main issue was whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation under Article 96 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act. The Court found that the suit was prima facie barred by limitation, but the plaintiffs invoked Section 14 of the Limitation Act to argue that the time spent in prosecuting other proceedings should be excluded. The Court analyzed the timeline of events and concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to invoke Section 14 to save the bar of limitation. 3. The Court interpreted Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the context of the proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs for execution of their decree. It was established that the proceeding before the Court of execution was started by the plaintiffs, and the objection raised by the judgment-debtors did not preclude the plaintiffs from invoking the provisions of Section 14 to avoid the bar of limitation. 4. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs, as decree-holders seeking to execute their decree, should not be equated with defendants or opposite parties, as they were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court held that the plaintiffs' suit was maintainable, not barred by limitation, and they were entitled to the relief sought for the rectification of the petition of adjustment. 5. The Court granted the relief for rectification of the petition of adjustment but dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for declaration of title and possession based on the findings of the Court of appeal below. The appeal was allowed in part, restoring the decree of the trial Court, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs in the litigation from the defendants.
|
