Judgment · High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Aug 2006
- Bench
- A S OKA
Provisions considered
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 30
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Even if the date of cause of action is taken as date of execution of document i.e. 12th September 1923 and proviso to section 30 of the said Act is applied, it is obvious that the suit filed by the original Plaintiff in the…
Judgment
Mr.Umesh Mankapure i/b Mr.R.V.More for the Appellants Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for Respondent Nos.2,3 and 4. A.S.OKA, J. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. CORAM: AUGUST 14, 2006. DATED: AUGUST 14, 2006. DATED: AUGUST 14, 2006. DATED: P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard Advocates for the parties. The Appellants are the original Plaintiffs. The contention raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellants is that if proviso to section 30 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is considered, the suit was within limitation and therefore the Appellate Court could not have set aside the decree on the ground of bar of limitation.
Even if the date of cause of action is taken as date of execution of document i.e. 12th September 1923 and proviso to section 30 of the said Act is applied, it is obvious that the suit filed by the original Plaintiff in the year 1982 was barred by limitation. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. -2- Judge. Judge. Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 30.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Aug 2006. The bench was A S OKA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.