AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question is whether this application under Order XXXIV, Rule 5(2) of the CPC for a final decree in a mortgage suit is subject to Article
181 or Article 182, Schedule I of the Limitation Act.
We do not think it necessary to refer to any case before Mahammad Hussin v. Abdul Kareem 29 Ind. Cas. 237: 17 M.L.T. 424. It no doubt
goes some way, if it is applicable, in support of appellants'' contention for Article 182.
But it is, in our opinion, inapplicable to the case before us, the preliminary-decree now in question having been passed after, whilst the decree
then in question was passed before, the present CPC came into operation. This distinotion is drawn in the judgment in Nimmala Mahankali v.
Mahanakali v. Kallakuri Subba Rao 41 Ind. Cas. 268, with which we express our respectful concurrence. We are further fortified in that
concurrence by the fact that the judgment is in accordance with the decisions of two other High Courts, those of Bombay and Allahabad, and that
it is not in conflict with those of the High Court of Calcutta. Datta Atmaram Hasabnis v. Shankar Dattatraya 21 Ind. Cas. 318; Madho Ham v.
Nihal Singh 30 Ind. Cas. 494 ; Beni Singh v. Barhamdeo Singh 28 Ind. Cas. 211. We hold that Article 181 is applicable and dismiss the appeal
against appellate order with costs.