High CourtsDivision Bench(1911) 02 BOM CK 0004

Trimbak Kashiram Shimpi vs Abaji Chimnaji Patil

Bombay High Court · Decided on 28 February 1911 · Citation: (1911) 13 BOMLR 508

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.G. Chandavarkar, J · Heaton, J
CASE NUMBER
Second Appeal No. 344 of 1910

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 140 words

Chandavarkar, J.—The question is whether Section 13(c)of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act must be regarded as repealed in consequence of the repeal of Section 257A of the old CPC (Act XIV of 1882) by the new Code (Act V of 1908). That section of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act incorporates by reference Section 257A of the old Code; and it is argued by Mr. Patvardhan for the appellant that its repeal has the effect of repealing Sections 13, Clause (c), of the Act also. But in the words of Brett L.J. in Clarke v. Bradlaugh (6) "Where a statute is incorporated by reference into a second statute, the repeal of the first by a third does not affect the second." See also Maxwell on Statutes, 3rd Edition, p. 590.

2.

For these reasons the decree must be confirmed with costs.