High CourtsDivision Bench(1909) 11 MAD CK 0012

Valliammai (deceased) and Others vs Raju Shanmugam Pillai

Madras High Court · Decided on 25 November 1909 · Citation: (1910) 21 MLJ 466

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sankaran Nair, J

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

11 paragraphs · 274 words

Sankaran Nair, J.—I an unable to agree with the judge that when a suit is found to be barred by limitation, it is open to him to allow the

plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit, if the fresh suit is one which would be barred by the decision in the earlier suit. But I

think it is unnecessary to proceed on that ground. In fact that question does not arise. This is an application presented by the decree-holder who

seeks to turn out of possession the respondent who claims to be in possession. It is registered as a suit and the judge holds that the suit is barred

by the provision of the CPC that the application must be presented within a month of the obstruction complained of. In my opinion the judge is

wrong. The application can be entertained and be registered as a suit only if it is presented within one month. As it was not presented within one

month, it should not have been registered as a suit. It is manifestly unfair to the applicant-decree-holder that his application should be wrongly

registered as a suit and then dismissed so as to make it a bar to a suit, while if his application had been originally dismissed, such dismissal would

not have barred a subsequent suit. I accordingly set aside the order or decree in O.S. No. 79 of 1908, the order in M.P. 106 of 1907 registering

the application as a suit, and dismiss M.P. 106 of 1907 as having been presented after the period of limitation. The parties will bear their own costs

throughout.