9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (12) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies were entitled in the property which is the subject of the litigation and appointing one Mr. Mojamdar to effect the partition and report the fact of his having done so on. or before 6th April 1918. On 30th November 1918 Mr. Mojamdar was removed and Mr. Dabir was appointed commissioner in his place. The order sheet of 11th January 1919 states that the commission did not issue as plaintiff did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed. 3. Two contentions have been raised on behalf of the applicant. The first is that since a final decree was drawn up and was not appealed from, the preliminary decree could not be revived by the application presented on 18th July 1927. But as I have said above, there has been no final decree drawn up yet in the eye of the law. In Pandurang v. Gayabai A.I.R. 1921 Nag. 108 it is laid down tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lash Goundan v. Ramasawmi Ayyar [1882] 4 Mad. 172 it is laid down that the provisions of the Limitation Act, though in their terms doubtless most extensive, must be held to apply to applications for the exercise, by the authority to which the applications are addressed, of powers which it would not be bound to exercise without such application, and not to applications to the Court to do what it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
