1928 (5) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Article 181 of the Limitation Act.
2. Calculation of the limitation period for applications under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
3. Determination of the starting point for the limitation period.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Article 181 of the Limitation Act:

Both judges in the High Court agreed that Article 181, not Article 182, was applicable to the case. The judges did not think it necessary to broadly state the point of law, limiting the reference to the applicability of Article 181. The court refused to discuss the applicability of Article 181 further, acknowledging that different High Courts have taken and will continue to take different views on this matter.

2. Calculation of the Limitation Period for Applications under Section 144, CPC:

The primary issue was whether the limitation period should be counted from the date of the decrees of the lower appellate Court or from the date of the High Court's dismissal of the appeals. The plaintiff argued that the tenants' right to apply for restitution accrued on 14th August 1920, when the lower appellate Court reduced the amounts of the plaintiff's decrees. The tenants applied for restitution in May and June 1924, and the plaintiff contended that this was beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed by Article 181.

3. Determination of the Starting Point for the Limitation Period:

The court examined whether the tenants' right to claim restitution was suspended during the pendency of the plaintiff's appeal to the High Court. Suhrawardy, J. held that the right accrued on the date of the lower appellate Court's decrees, rejecting the notion of suspension and any principle that could extend the time prescribed by Article 181. Graham, J., however, believed that time ran from the date of the final pronouncement by the High Court, reasoning that the relief granted by the lower appellate Court was imperiled by the appeals.

The court ultimately rejected the argument that the tenants' conduct in waiting for the High Court's decision was reasonable and not negligent. It emphasized that the Indian Limitation Act does not allow for exceptions based on hardship or reasonableness unless explicitly stated in the statute.

Final Judgment:

The court concluded that the time to be reckoned under Article 181 should be counted from the decrees of the lower appellate Court, not from the High Court's dismissal of the appeals. The tenants were not entitled to deduct the period occupied by the appeals to the High Court. Consequently, the judgment of Suhrawardy, J. took effect, the appeals of the plaintiff were allowed, and the tenants' applications under Section 144, CPC were dismissed. There was no order as to costs, except that the plaintiff was awarded the costs of the hearing before the court.

Concurrence:

Charu Chander Ghose, J. and P.L. Buckland, J. agreed with the judgment.