9911796707
TMI Blog1932 (12) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, nor, per contra, if the respondents can take advantage of a certain order of the appellate Court, that it was within time. 2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was launched as long ago as 1912. Some four years later it came up in appeal Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan v. Ganesh Dass, (1917) I.L.R. 45 Cal. 442, 19 Bom. L.R. 972, p.c to this Board, but was sent back for trial in the Baluchistan courts, where the proceedings dragged on for another twelve years. 3. On November 17, 1920, the decree of which execution is sought was passed in favour of the plaintiff Ganesh Das Vig, by the Assistant Political Agent, Quetta. Against this decree both parties appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in Baluchistan. Two years or more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the appellate Court within Art, 182 (2). Both the Courts in India have held that it was. 7. The respondents made their application for execution on October 27, 1926. The present appellants, the representatives of the judgment-debtor, who was then dead, took various objections to the application, and after the lapse of another two years, a considerable portion of which was occupied in a search by the Court officials for the file of the case, the matter came on before the Assistant Political Agent. Objection to his jurisdiction and to the title of the respondents were disposed of in their favour. They have not been urged before the Board. On the question of limitation, the learned Judge held, following a ruling of the Calcutta Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... boriously decided to be a just debt. 8. In the argument before their Lordships the appellants have relied mainly on two decisions of this Board, Batuk Nath v. Munni Dei (1914) L.R. 41 I.A. 104: s.c. 16 Bom. L.R. 360, and Abdul Majid v. Jawahir Lal (1914) I.L.R. 36 All. 350: s.c. 16 Bom. L.R. 395, P.c. Neither of these cases is, in their Lordships' opinion, decisive of the present question. In the first, an appeal to His Majesty in Council had been dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule V of the Order in Council of June 13, 1853. The question before the Board in the reported case was whether under Article 179 of the second schedule to the Indian Limitation Act of 1877, which corresponds with Article 182 of the Act of 1908, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was allowed for the execution Order of His Majesty in Council of the Indian Limitation Act. Their Lordships see no foundation for this contention, which appears to have been the basis of the decision of the Courts below. The order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution did not deal judicially with the matter of the suit and could in no sense be regarded as an order adopting or confirming the decision appealed from. It merely recognised authoritatively that the appellant had not complied with the conditions under which the appeal was open to him, and that therefore he was in the same position as if he had not appealed at all. 10. In the case now before their Lordships it is manifest that there was an order of the appellate Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
