AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Patanjali Sastri, J.—In this case the Court below has dismissed an application for relief u/s 15 of Act IV of 1938 filed by the petitioner
against whom a decree had been passed for poruppu payable to the respondent. The ground of dismissal was that the application was barred by
limitation. The Court relied on the decision in Sri Raja Velugoti Venkata Rajagopala Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu Vs. Kuram Venkata
Seshacharlu, in support of this conclusion. That decision no doubt holds that a procedure analogous to that laid down in Section 19 should be
followed with reference to decrees for rent which do not strictly fall within that provision. This does not however mean that in dealing with
applications of this kind, the Court ought to apply the time-limit specified in Section 20 of the Act which in terms applies only to applications for
relief u/s 19. It is one thing to say that the Act having indicated no appropriate procedure for scaling down decrees for rent as provided by Section
15 of the Act a procedure analogous to that provided in Section 19. for decrees for the repayment of ""debts"" (which term does not include rent)
should '' be followed, but it is a different thing to hold that the time-limit prescribed in Section 20 should be applied to applications for relief u/s 15
in respect of decrees for rent; for this would be enacting a new rule of limitation based upon analogy which the Court, in my opinion, has no power
to do.
The order of the Court below is set aside and the case is remanded for disposal according to law. Costs will abide and follow the result.